Jump to content

User talk:Utopes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:UtopianPoyzin)

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Review Neshe artist page

[edit]

Hi! @Utopes, after your review of Draft:Neshe I slightly changed the tone of the article in order to make it more neutral as requested. If you see any other word that should be changed, please let me know, as to me everything all looks pretty neutral today. --GlobalMusicFan (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping? GlobalMusicFan (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was unable to take a look for a bit. Looks like the draft has been approved now; well done! Utopes (talk / cont) 14:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

[edit]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Leszek Jańczuk

[edit]

You wrote "Nearly two-thirds of the articles in the references section seem to be written by Janczuk himself, and should not be used as references". That is not true. Only one reference was written by me (number 7 - service in army, not important). You did not verifie carefully. "There is a section labeled "popular articles by Janczuk", says who?" Sorry, it means "Non-Scholarly Articles", nothing more. "Artykuły naukowe" - Scholarly articles, "Artykuły popularne" - Non-Scholarly Articles. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I reviewed the draft, references 7, 18, 25 through 52 were all listed with you as the author. Self-published sources should not be added into the References tab. Non-scholarly is a better term than popular, so this is a good change. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, secondary, and independent

[edit]

Dear Editor,

I kindly request clarification, as I do not see any mistake on my part. You, and another Editor, stated that the submission was not supported by reliable sources.

For most entries, it is indeed essential for sources to be truly independent to establish credibility. However, the case of a scientific journal is different—it serves as a reliable source of information itself. The double-blind peer review process, an independent Scientific Council, and external Editors guarantee the quality of its content. Furthermore, independent and reputable databases such as Scopus and Web of Science uphold high standards. The inclusion of a scientific journal in these databases already indicates its recognition within the academic community.

The classification of a journal and its assignment to the first quartile (Q1) reflects the interest of researchers in its articles, as demonstrated by their citations in numerous other international scientific journals.

In summary, I would like to emphasize that the high ranking confirmed by Poland’s Ministry of Science, the aforementioned international databases, and, most importantly, the citation metrics and resulting international indicators all attest to the high quality and impact of the "Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series" on the development of socio-economic sciences.

I have modified the sources. The sources I have provided are undoubtedly reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.

If the above information is insufficient, I kindly request guidance on what additional sources or details should be provided to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Sincerely,

WJ Włodzimierz Juśkiewicz (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1968 disasters in Austria

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1968 disasters in Austria indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 23:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gamma-Aminobutanol" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Gamma-Aminobutanol has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4 § Gamma-Aminobutanol until a consensus is reached.

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • 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) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top AfC Editor

[edit]
The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!

[edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

This award is given in recognition to Utopes for conducting 569 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ninja Award
This award is given in recognition to Utopes for conducting 5,018 redirect reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work, keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review please, two-month 0ld submission

[edit]

Hello @Utopes

Saw you were recently active in afc, and hoped you might be able to please assist in review and/or approval for my first draft submission: Draft:Gerry Cardinale It's been two months waiting in review, I don't think it's being seen by any reviewers. Appreciate your help or any direction to another option. Thank you very much- Yachtahead (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yachtahead: Thanks for letting me know! It's a mixed bag, but generally reviewers don't look at drafts per request, as its all volunteer. I looked briefly at this draft and I think it looks well-written honestly! I just haven't been able to verify whether the subject is notable, but if you've made a case for it in the draft then good work!
At the moment, the max-length of a draft in the queue is ~2 months, so I'm sure it'll receive a review sometime soon. In terms of other options, there's always the WP:TEAHOUSE which is for general advice and help on Wikipedia. From an AfC point of view, there's the WP:AFC/HELP desk as well, which should get a response from any available reviewer. I might have time to check whether this subject meets the notability guidelines later, but the best bet is asking at the AfC help desk or the teahouse for people who are on a roll with giving advice and assistance! Utopes (talk / cont) 20:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, @Utopes for the helpful response and complement about the page. As for notability, it should meet the standard with 10+ known, reliable, independent sources. Was there anything else I have to do to demonstrate its notability, or the draft itself with the references is the measure? Thanks again. Yachtahead (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if the page for Cardinale was deleted in 2022 due to "not being notable". Now, I'm not an admin so I'm not sure about the state of the article as it would then, hence I'm hesitant in approving now. However, it seems as if there IS new information as of 2023 and 2024, and my external searches have demonstrated a lot more significant coverage within the last couple years. I don't really deal with biographies very often, but I think there's a good shot at approval here.
Sources that are interviews of the subject, however, aren't able to demonstrate notability as interviews are not independent sources. I'm seeing a good lot of interviews in the references, but there's a lot of new coverage, so maybe there's some which aren't interviews. Yachtahead, what would you say are the three best sources in the article that aren't interviews? Utopes (talk / cont) 21:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Utopes. You're right, these past two years since 2022 has been far busier than ever: he's bought the AC Milan soccer club, produced the film Top Gun Maverick, and been involved in other significant deals in that time. "Interview" I know is a nuanced term, from the link you shared (thank you). The other links also include a lot of independent, secondary information about him from the journalists, like the 60 minutes example - he is quoted, "But if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, it contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." So even though I think the other links still are useful, I hope you'd count these as not interviews, even though he has a quote in each, he is not the subject of the sourcing. Would you agree? Thanks again:
NYTimes, Career summary:
https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/more-goldman-partners-head-for-the-exit/
About his firm:
https://www.businessinsider.com/redbird-capital-gerry-cardinale-growing-financial-services-portfolio-2023-1
About a deal with the NFL:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidlariviere/2015/04/07/nfl-tabs-george-pyne-gerry-cardinale-to-grow-premium-events-hospitality-business/ Yachtahead (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't deal with drafts on request. But the sourcing seems to be solid here and I consider it to be very different from whatever the situation in 2022. Is mentioned in a number of new Wikipedia pages from 2023-24+ as well so the timing seems right. Thank you for your efforts in pulling this together! Utopes (talk / cont) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @Utopes! Yachtahead (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LoreHaven (20:03, 12 January 2025)

[edit]

Hello, I just started correcting some grammatical mistakes. But a fellow sent me a message that we removed your edits. Can you explain it to me, please? --LoreHaven (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LoreHaven: Hello, thank you for fixing grammatical mistakes! It looks like someone undid your edit though. Looking at the change you made, it seems the text previously said "set-pieces, especially", while your edit changed it to say "set- ieces,i especially". This link shows the entire edit: [1]. It looks like someone perceived it as a "test edit" and brought the page back to its previous state because of the typo. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Hallykupah on Tehn Diamond (01:46, 19 January 2025)

[edit]

Hello how do I create a citation --Hallykupah (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hallykupah: You can create a citation by clicking on the "Cite" button while editing! This will give you the opportunity to input information about a website or a book, or wherever else you find information from to include in the article. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
Now obviously I can't continue without leaving you a barnstar! Thanks so much for helping out with the back end on the NPP backlog, especially the articles before 2024 began -- never, never expected such progress. I think I've gained confidence myself to review more articles based on what we just did. Teamwork makes the dreamwork! :) ~ Tails Wx 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question on a reference in our draft

[edit]

Thank you for the quick helpful feedback on our draft page. I'm trying to understand referencing properly. Are these references acceptable ?

"432 MHz Moonbounce from VK1 in December 95".

It is a report on an event by a person who was a "visitor" to the event who participated but did not design or make preparations for the event. Does that mean it's primary ? It is the only report on the event that is published and accessible online. Does that mean the event is not notable ?

Australian and New Zealand Physicist - Vol 31 No 03 - March 1994, https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oFOhoKbGi5JUWnj0fhZvIlY5mUoKKN9/ [pdf; page 31, article titled "Earth Satellite Facilities at the University of Canberra"]

This is also the only report on an event that is published and accessible online. Does that mean the event is not notable ? It was published by an organisation that was independent of the parties to the event. Does that mean it is a secondary source ? Endured (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Sorry, I'm happy to use Teahouse and Afc Help Desk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endured (talk • contribs) 02:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Endured:; just trying to understand the situation here. The first reference linked does not talk about upcyc at all. This reference does not seem to support the statement that "the UpCyc was the transmitter for a moon bounce project". I checked page 31 of the second source, and I'm not seeing anything about an "UpCyc" project either.
Currently the draft says: "The facility consists of a 10 metre parabolic dish with counterweights mounted on a base extension pedestal. There is an adjacent hut for supporting equipment. It is located in a fenced compound." Is there a source that can corroborate this? It is uncited in the draft as it stands. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Khabar

[edit]

added Sharmaranjeetjournalist (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jonathan Frantz

[edit]

Hello! Thanks for the feedback on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Jonathan_Frantz

I’ve worked to ensure it's well-sourced and neutral.

I went over each and every word to try to apply a more encyclopedic and neutral tone. From words like "pioneer" to "notable" to "key researcher," (and more) I have removed any and all language that could even remotely appear promotional.

Other than that, the article is sourced with medical journals, as well as local and national news coverage.

If there is anything I missed, could you point out specific areas where the tone seems promotional so I can address them? Or if this is satisfactory, would you remove the rejection?

Thank you in advance! I hope these revisions simplify the tone, remove promotional language, and maintain a neutral and factual approach while preserving the key information. Editora89119 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 7#Early life and career of Donald Trump ...

[edit]

... "Keep" the redirect to the nonexistent section Donald Trump#Early life? That can't be right. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted the pointer to "early life and education", meant for that to be the location. Thanks for catching! Utopes (talk / cont) 18:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Thanks! (May want to adjust your close ... 😉) Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 22:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft:Patrizio di Massimo

[edit]

Hello @Utopes! Thanks for your review of Draft:Patrizio di Massimo. I have adjusted the bio as you suggested in a more formal tone and avoiding peacock terms. I have also changed the structure of the article in order to make it more neutral.

Do you think you are able to accept the draft as it is now? Otherwise, please feel free to make further suggestions :)

Thanks!

Caterina Lo (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Abhishek Diwakar 302 (17:15, 26 January 2025)

[edit]

Please try --Abhishek Diwakar 302 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category question

[edit]

Can you point me to where Category:Television series by Nickelodeon Animation Studio was requested? It's a pet category for an LTA sockmaster.-- Ponyobons mots 23:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was just requested at WP:AFC/C. Apologies for not noticing if there was an LTA involved; other similar categories have existed which might be worth looking into depending on the situation.
(edit conflict) Glad you found it! Reopened this because you might want to take a look at Category:Television series by Calon (TV production company) which was also recently requested, in the AFC/C January 2025 archives if you're inclined to poking around there for similar behavior. A few of these category requests have come through from IPs, I've generally been approving them though. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoon and Nickelodeon redirect and category requests from Chilean IPs are nearly 100% guaranteed to be this LTA. You can usually see that category has been deleted previously and they've figured out a work around at being detected is to get the good folks at WP:AFC/C and WP:AFC/R to unknowingly proxy for them.-- Ponyobons mots 23:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's good to know. In this case I did not check the deletion logs, I just saw a lot of similarly-constructed category titles and the request made sense and seemed in good faith. The IP who requested the Calon one probably fits the bill as well, which I see now it's been taken care of. Thank you for your diligence! Utopes (talk / cont) 00:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:2803:C600:8101:80DD:602A:347A:9823:5DE3 (the requestor of the Calon category) has a lot of warnings already from their brief editing history, so if you need to file that one away for an SPI hopefully that helps a bit. (Looks dormant now though so maybe not...) Utopes (talk / cont) 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. They return to that /64 every now and then, so I've blocked it for 3 months. It woud be easier if I could just let you know which sockmaster it is, but privacy policy and all that...-- Ponyobons mots 00:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good, I'll keep an eye out over at AFC/C and R moving forward. Thanks for the catch, o7 Utopes (talk / cont) 00:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 30 § 7th century mass cleanup

[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 30 § 7th century mass cleanup on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beland (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VC-7 submission

[edit]

Thank you for your evaluation of the draft article for VC-7. I note that the submissions of the VC-7 draft has been declined. The reason given is that VC-7 is already mentioned in an article about RVAH. In the extensive work I have done researching VC-7, I do believe that VC-7 should have its own article since when the designation of the squadron changed to RVAH, the mission of the squadron also changed. VC-7's mission was to deliver nuclear weapons. This seems to make it very different from RVAH's mission which was photo reconnaissance. In addition, VC-7, like the other heavy attack squadrons were vital to securing the role of the Navy in the post World War II world. Thus, I would like to suggest that VC-7 have a stand alone article. If a stand alone article is not possible, I would like to understand how to incorporate it into the RVAH article. Thank you for your consideration and any suggestions you can give me. Schbrown (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I would recommend doing in this situation is to initiate a split-proposal (from WP:SPLIT) rather than creating an article on a topic that already has a section on RVAH-7. If you'd like, I can go ahead and post what you've said here, on the talk page for Talk:RVAH-7, in order to get some input from people who follow the subject and who might be a bit more knowledgeable than I on the situation? You've brought up a fair point that could be worth a discussion. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, split-proposals can take a long time to resolve, and you've done a lot of work on this in the meantime. What I'll do instead is I can promote the article to mainspace, and if someone disagrees, it can be redirected into RVAH-7. So far what you've said is uncontested, and it is a well-referenced draft, so I'm fine with moving it to mainspace for now. If somebody else redirects it, a discussion can take place about whether two articles are needed here. Thank you for your efforts in putting this together! Utopes (talk / cont) 20:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article creative

[edit]

Hello, how are you? How important it is to use reliable sources when creating articles for Wikipedia. Thank you. Happy editing! (Pirates 67 (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Utopes&oldid=1273074605"