User talk:Ca/Archives/2024/September

I feel what you did was very inappropriate

I understand that you may disagree with the revelations which are presented by the scientific data. However, me showing that data is not an example of any kind of "POV-pushing" and I am always assuming good faith. If I didn't assume good faith, I wouldn't be dedicating time to helping you understand fact vs fiction.Please learn to understand that my edits are 100% and an extra 100% 100%+100%=200%

so 200% in good faith. Do not mistaken me for a POV pusher or something like that. Or else you're failing to assume good faith. I do recognize true vandalism when I see it and I call it out. I do not perform OR (Original Research) of any kind.

I ask that you please learn to be respectful and if you disagree with an edit I've made, you don't have to take it to the Administrators' noticeboard, for the inner-autism resonating within my soul often times may have trouble figuring out if one's edit is good faith or unfaithful or disgraceful or distasteful or hateful. I feel if you had good faith you wouldn't try to do this to me; as Wikipedia is all about working as a collective team to spread the truth to the people who need the truth and to be enlightened on topics they don't know about.

Let's both collectively make Wikipedia a better place.

Sincerely, The Great chumchumlol Chumchumlol (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I did not "take it to the Administrators' noticeboard" because I diagreed with your edits, but the repeated accusations of me and other editors as "destroy[ing]" or "vandalizing" the article when they are just trying to help. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about Review

Recently on my account (I’m currently not signed in) I made an article for a TV episode called “Coffins and Cradles”, and I was wondering if you could tell me why you rejected the request for it to become an article, what can I do to fix the article? 2603:7000:7E06:F500:905E:9824:6516:681B (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is sufficient content unique from what there is in the page Home Movies season 3. You can improve your draft by adding more content sourced to reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the show. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from The User Formerly Known As Triserif (21:08, 6 September 2024)

Good morning/evening/afternoon. I believe that it was the case that you had been assigned as my mentor, back when I was Triserif. Unfortunately, I forgot my password and had to create a new account, namely Dodecathorpe. Hope you understand.

P.S. I haven't been assigned a mentor yet, as I created my account through Wikibooks this time, so would it be possible for you to be reassigned as my mentor?

P.P.S. Yes, this is my first time directly interacting with you, to the best of my knowledge. Dodecathorpe (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello ⩩ (fun username btw :D). Forgetting your password is a legitimate reason to create a new account—it's perfectly fine. I have assigned your new account as your mentor. If you want feedback on anything, feel free to reach out. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Dodecathorpe (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Clown Atlas (16:15, 29 August 2024)

Hi there! My name is Stephanie and I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for a candidate that is running for President in the 2024 election. I have already done my research, obtained my citations and created the content. Is there a way to submit or do I have to go through a process before it can be reviewed for publish? Thank you for any assistance! --Clown Atlas (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have more than 15 edits and your account is 4 days old, you can publish articles by yourself without needing a secondary review, where readers can access it. It will still be reviewed by New page patrollers. WP:Your First Article and WP:BACKWARD are great essays for crafting your first article.

If you have conflict of interest with the candidate (such as working for the campaign, being paid, close personal connection, etc), you have to go through the WP:Articles For Creation process, where you can submit your draft for others to review. Just a heads up though: the queue is very long currently. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! As far as I am aware this candidate has no campaign manager or other strategist which is a unique opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia something I saw as notable! I appreciate your assistance! I am very excited to continue to contribute new topics worth sharing! Thank you for your patience as I learn! :) I am a newbie and an old dog learning new tricks haha Clown Atlas (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I able to remove this from Draft seeing as my account is more than 4 days now and I also have more than 15 edits? I was trying to start a new page on a different topic and I cannot use my sandbox with my page in draft mode. Thank you again for your assistance! Clown Atlas (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You can always create more sandboxes by creating a subpage. You can do it by adding a / after your userpage User:Clown Atlas like User:Clown Atlas/sandbox1 or User:Clown Atlas/ExampleDraft24234. This way, you don't have to remove your current draft. You're welcome! Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome thank you for being so helpful and kind! 😁 Clown Atlas (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Good morning CA 😁 hope your day is going well. Another question on this topic, am I able to move my draft Per your response: "If you have more than 15 edits and your account is 4 days old, you can publish articles by yourself without needing a secondary review, where readers can access it. It will still be reviewed by New page patrollers"

am I able to move this from AFC to publish now that I have some experience and days under my belt? And if so how do I do that? I really do appreciate all of your help very much! Clown Atlas (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You technically can move your draft the into mainspace, so that it becomes an article. If you are talking about Draft:Christopher M. Garrity, I do not recommend doing so. It have been declined by multiple AfC reviewers, so I don't see how NPP reviewers would think any different. I recommend following the AfC reviewer's instructions, and have it accepted by a reviewer. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question CA I really do appreciate your guidance 😞. I am just feeling a little flustered this morning after reviewing several other bios that do not rise to the level of what feels to me as bias. After I fixed the issues completely restructuring and adding significant reliable and credible sources and resubmitted the next person picked up and only wanted some of the "Peacock" words removed and I removed them all. Then the next person picks it up and goes back to an issues that another reviewer looked at that I had resolved. I feel like a ping pong ball. This year in particular politically peoples own biases are preventing to me as a voter critical information during this historical times. This is not the only candidate I plan on making a page for there are several others, were you aware that Lucifer is running for president? haha. Anyway again thank you. Clown Atlas (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Clown Atlas It could be that those "several other bios" are not up to sourcing standards and need maintanace or even deletion. Try looking at articles listed in WP:GA for a sense of what a good article looks like; they have been peer-reviewed by other editors. I've been through the AfC process before, back I was a new editor like you—it can be slow and frustrating due to a lack of volunteer reviewers. Anyhow, I wish you the best of luck! Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you CA I have made several changes and edits and resubmited for review. I appreciate your help :) Clown Atlas (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sara246santos (14:53, 12 September 2024)

Hi, I am trying to create a new wikipedia page for Kenneth S Breuer, I need detailed feedback on improvements to I can submit for acceptance again. Thank you --Sara246santos (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sara246santos I think you addressed many of the the problems the reviewers listed. Your draft used to have a lot of unsourced statements. Good sources are particularly imperative in a biography of a living person.

Statements like "At the micron scale, he pioneered the mechanics of bacterial motility." require independent reliable sources, since it is making a third-party claim that he was the first in a certain research field. The orange banners above your draft also list some guidance on improving your draft. Good luck! Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Rejection of the St. Joseph Shrine (Quezon City) Draft

I always knew that primarily using the livestream from the church's Facebook page would result in the rejection of the draft article, but by being a primary source, it was also the most detailed one compared to independent sources I found about the shrine, which unfortunately are few in quantity, have more summarized information, and come from websites deemed generally unreliable (such as this one from WordPress). That being said, thank you for rejecting the draft.

However, in previous versions of the draft, I used a reference from the website Philippine Faith & Heritage Tours, whose site was used as a reference for the history of Cubao Cathedral. However, the website went down, rendering the link dead. I did not know that it was archived in Wayback Machine until today, so could using this archived link be acceptable?

-Chris25689 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

PS: When I created the draft, I selected I'm not connected to the subject in the Article Wizard, but since I regularly attend Sunday masses in that shrine, and I am now an altar server in the shrine months after the draft's creation, I should have selected I'm writing about myself, or a close person/subject instead. Chris25689 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are useful for filling in minor details, especially for a niche subject like the one you are writing right now. However, over-reliance on the subject's own content does not represent a multiple nor disinterested perspective. Use of archived links is perfectly legitimate. There is even an automated bot that adds web archive links when it finds a dead link. Try the guide WP:Advanced source searching to aid you in finding sources. Good luck! Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

-Chris25689 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Good day Ca!

I actually know that archived links are legitimate, but when I asked if Philippine Faith and Heritage Tour (not Tours) source was "acceptable," what I meant was that if it, at least in your opinion, met the criteria of reliable sources. Although I stated that it was used in another article, it could just be me committing an argumentum ad populum fallacy if the aforementioned website is unreliable.

Also, is the creation of archive links automatic? I noticed that the archive date was the same date as when I created the draft.

Thank you!

Chris25689 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

I don't think Philippine Faith and Heritage Tour can be considered reliable. It is a commercial website selling tours, and there is no sign of who wrote the article or whether the author is an expert or not.

As for the second question, yes, there is a handy bot called User:InternetArchiveBot that automatically archives websites linked on Wikipedia. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Unalive

Hello, Ca. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Unalive, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Leendert1988 (13:09, 19 September 2024)

Why can't I login to the Dutch wikipidia? --Leendert1988 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure, perhaps try reading Help:Logging in? If it does not help, I recommend asking the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Leendert1988 (13:15, 19 September 2024)

I want to edit a Dutch page, but I'm blocked to the Dutch wikipedia (nl.wikipedia.org). Don't know why. --Leendert1988 (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Leendert1988 Are you still logged out on Dutch Wikipedia? Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No. It works, thanks 93.95.4.86 (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your block on Dutch Wikipedia might be due to someone else in your IP range doing something to get blocked. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Brain rot

Have you heard of Brain rot? I will tell you that it was a redirect to Alzheimers. Then after the rfd discussion, it was a soft redirect to wiktionary. AND THEN it was a full article. And that's the story of the Wikipedia article. AutorisedUser673 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice to know. I actually edited that page yesterday. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

i am a fweqwent editor of that article and Canada it is a ok article but it is a Stub so its really short and kinda useless. 4.39.220.106 (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Elijahman112 (23:00, 26 September 2024)

Hi, can you review my first edit? I want to make sure I am doing it right! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KLOK_%28AM%29&oldid=prev&diff=1247961379 --Elijahman112 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad to see you edit Wikipedia! I looked through your edit, and I definitely see improved prose. I do see that you have mistakenly removed some of the citations and information about the poll system, so I recommend adding them back. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Rejection of Draft:Future_Hunters

Hi Ca, thank you for reviewing my article. I believe that I've done my homework to establish notability of the topic and verifiability now. I've also added some contemporary reviews. Could you have another look at it? Thanks! Lipla (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lipla Hi, thank you for adding the new references! I have accepted the draft. The article should appear on Google in a couple of months. You could also try adding an image of the movie poster (if it exists), following the guideline WP:non-free media. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)