Jump to content

User talk:TheChunky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arminius-fun-nick (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 27 January 2023 (→Draft:Yana Kay: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi TheChunky! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 06:35, Thursday, August 6, 2020 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello TheChunky,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for adding information in Sargam Koushal article. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sargam Koushal

I saw you editing this article in which you added incorrect information about her that she was born in 20 September but as of Moneycontrol.com and Jagran Josh, she was born in 17 September not in 20 September. You can see the references https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/who-is-sargam-koushal-mrs-world-winner-2022-1671430002-1 https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/sargam-koushal-navy-officers-wife-brings-mrs-india-crown-to-india-after-21-years-9730331.html

Thanks. Please ping me if you want to reply. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @LordVoldemort728: , thanks for your message. Yes, I saw that many articles says 17 September as her birthdate. But I came across an article https://thechenabtimes.com/2022/12/19/jks-sargam-koushal-wins-mrs-world-2022-title-after-21-years/ . Where it says As per different media reports, her birthdate was different, while confirming her birthday to The Chenab Times, Sargam Koushal said that she was born on 20th September 1990 to GS Koushal and Meena Koushal in Jammu. She is married to Aditya Manohar Sharma who is an Indian Navy officer. and yesterday when I visited her instgram page, I saw that she shared the above link in her story. That's why I got confirmed that 20 September is correct.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

But the article from The Chenab Times is a press release and articles from Jagran Josh and Moneycontrol are not, they are written by individual author. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are often tagged on The Chenab Times as "Press Release" at the top because I have previously participated in various events where I observed this. The above one probably is not written by an individual author, but they claims to have interviewed Sargam Koushal for clarification of personal details. That seems more authentic. And Jangran Josh and Moneycontrol don't quote anyone for her date of birth claim; they write it generally.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello TheChunky:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a two week long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 14 January 2023.

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

There is a backlog of over 1100 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help! ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 13:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I've been using an improvised version of your signature since quite a while ;) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 13:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would love to do that ;). ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello TheChunky,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Request on 00:23:19, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Pugliese23


I am surprised that you declined my submission, Draft:Roberto Córdova. I had clearly established that Córdova was a judge of the International Court of Justice, the most important international court on Earth. He is one of the few judges of the ICJ without a Wikipedia article in English (see Judges of the International Court of Justice). The notability guidelines that you refer me to clearly establish that "politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". Out of my commitment to improving international law coverage in Wikipedia, I have included additional references and expanded the article, and resubmitted it. To be sure, it needs improvement. But it is a necessary article as it stands.

Pugliese23 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pugliese23 Hello, The references you added there are mostly primary sources, and some of them have errors that need to be addressed. Most important, the subject might be notable, but references should be made as per policies. Kindly fix the references and submit again; if it follows the guidelines, it will be accepted soon. Please note that I have declined the submission, which means that after improvement, it can be submitted again. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is notability the issue? There are more than enough primary and secondary sources establishing that he was an ICJ judge. I understand notability should be presumed, as per the guidelines. I don’t think rejecting the submission was ever the adequate response to any shortcomings the article may have.
I am inclined to simply abandon the draft, as evident as it is that it is notable and necessary (i.e., one of the very few judges in the history of the ICJ without an article). Pugliese23 (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Please improve the article by copyediting and also add infobox if you can. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pugliese23 Can you please clarify to me that the mayor of Pichilemu City Council, whose name is also Roberto Córdova, is a different person!!! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! He is, indeed, a different person. Pugliese23 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Then there are various links present where the judge Roberto is linked as Mayor. Please try to remove them. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

Request on 19:40:39, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by VideŁitt



VideŁitt (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello, you have recently rejected my proposal for an article. i have reworked the article. i#ve scrapped most of the text and added a boatload of sources and a 'further reading' section. could you maybe have a look again and check whether this would be ok now? best, best Vide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ulrike_Lienbacher

VideŁitt Hi, the article still need reliable and independent coverage. Please read what is WP:RS. Add at three best sources which covers the subject in depth. Thank you.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

TheChunky thanks for having a look. aren't you setting the boundary unusually high for me here? especially for a living artist? basic noteability rules say "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject." i have cited 7 renowned newspapers, in-depth-texts in photo journals, texts in 4 different catalogues in english language – all published completely independent of the artist. i listed numerous exhibitions in internationally know exhibition venues. all the people I've quoted (in the longer version too) are notable curators, art historians and journalists relevant to the field (if you want, google Silvia Eiblmayr, Thomas D. Trummer, Roger Malbert, Martin Hochleitner, Reinhard Braun...) i have also used a few quotes from longer in-depth texts that were published in lienbacher's books (they are not self-published though) to describe her approach. i think this is legitimate for contemporary artist. i hope you can reconsider your verdict. best, Vide

Dear, if you believe that article passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, you can resubmit it. There are thousands of reviewers who are currently reviewing drafts. It will be reviewed by some more experienced reviewer. For now, I suggest you to kindly expand the lead section a bit as per WP:LEAD. Thank You. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

I don't know if you noticed, but your signature points to Talk:TheChunky and not user talk:TheChunky. Please fix it. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Primefac. I have fixed it now. Thanks again.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 16:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:03:13, 12 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Armer Thor


TheChunky Thank you for the quick review! I am surprised by the outcome though. After the article Draft:Wilson fermion had been declined for the first time, I have added more references so that there are now 4 published and reviewed books. In my understanding all of them meet all the required criteria being in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. I would be very thankful for more specific feedback as to how many more references would be required or whether the type of references provided should be changed. Armer Thor (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work on creating the Draft:Wilson fermion article, Armer Thor. After reviewing the draft as you did some improvements, I believe that it would be better suited as a section within the "Lattice field theory" article rather than having a separate article. There are also other fermion-related drafts currently under review, so it's best to wait for feedback from other reviewers before making any final decisions. Keep in mind that there is a reviewing drive happening currently, so your draft will be reviewed soon. Thanks again for your contribution! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TheChunky, that makes a lot of sense. I agree that some of the lattice fermion discretisations are not really notable enough to warrant their own page. This is certainly true for the Draft:Stacey fermion and possibly for the Draft:SLAC fermion. However, I'd argue that some other lattice fermions are important enough and have enough to say about that an article of their own feels more than reasonable. E.g. Staggered fermion has existed for a while and Domain wall fermion has recently been added. Draft:Wilson fermion is arguably even more important than the aforementioned, Draft:Ginsparg-Wilson fermion, Draft:Overlap fermion, and Draft:Twisted mass fermion are roughly similar in importance.
Most of these articles are stubs so far because I believe it better to have all the definitions out there than a few long articles, but expanding them is just a matter of time. Adding all of them into lattice field theory would simply be too much. Armer Thor (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about page declined?

Hi TheChunky,

Thanks for reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Or_Hen! Unfortunately it was declined, and I'm unsure I understand why? The 8 criteria for science bio pages talk about "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" and give being an IEEE fellow as an example. The person I wrote about is an APS Fellow (which is the equivalent of IEEE for physics researchers). The APS website says "... no more than one half of one percent of the Society’s membership (excluding student members) is recognized by their peers for election to the status of Fellow of the American Physical Society", which speaks to its distinction. In addition, the person received several international prizes by APS and IUPAP. So I think there are two objective criteria that they meet (and also more subjective ones based on the impact of their work but I leave that out of the discussion for now).

What can I do to improve the submission for approval? 18.10.70.75 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts in contributing to Wikipedia. We understand that the subject of your draft article may be notable and may also pass WP:PROF, but unfortunately the "Early life and education" section had only one source at the beginning sentences and the whole section was unsourced. Additionally, the "Research and career" section also had many unsourced pieces of information. In order to have your draft accepted, it is important to include reliable sources for all of the information included in the article. We appreciate your understanding and look forward to seeing your improved draft in the future. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Another question about page declined

Hi TheChunky,

Thanks for reviewing my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yves Winkin. But I'm confused: I do not understand why this does not meet the requirements of an encyclopedia article. I've actually published half a dozen articles in print encyclopedias (I'm a retired professor), and I've previously created a couple of Wikipedia entries as well, so I thought I understand the basic requirements. Can you provide more specific information about what you're finding inappropriate, or do you prefer that I use the real-time chat help? Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz — Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your experience with creating Wikipedia entries, Sir Leeds-hurwitz. As a retired professor, it is important to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest when editing articles related to your field of expertise. Additionally, it is important to ensure that all Wikipedia articles follow the guidelines outlined in WP:NPOV and are structured in a neutral and encyclopedic manner, rather than appearing as an essay. Please keep these guidelines in mind when making future contributions to Wikipedia.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Silver Wiki Award
Thank you for participating in Articles for Creation's January 2023 Backlog Drive! You came in second place, with 481 reviews for a total of 593.5 points. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page declined - request for more guidelines

Hello @TheChunky, I've recently submitted a draft on the Polish MarTech company RTB House. I added more sources as you've advised but they are in different languages (not just English or Polish) - is that ok? I also delated some, that may have been considered not independent. Another thing - since the topic is a b2b company from a very specific line of business, most of the materials are from industry but also business media. I've also stumbled upon a couple of companies-related articles on Wiki which were citing their own websites or were giving no sources at all, so I hope that what I did is enough. I'd appreciate your feedback.

Additionally, I added a couple of new information on the company since these were the main reasons I believed it's worth publishing that article on wiki (the company grew from just a tech start-up into a large company and it managed to establish its presence in various countries in - which for a Polish company is a real success story; and most importantly it's involved in the Google's Privacy Sandbox project which goals and results are important for an average internet user). I tried to be as matter of fact as possible - hopefully, I managed to do just that. But if something sounds too vague or seems unsubstantiated, please let me know and I'll do my best to improve the draft. Msg 2507 (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Msg 2507: Hi, currently the draft is violating WP:REFBOMB policy. Please read this and improve it. And secondly, did you have any connection with this subject? Just asking. If yes, you have to declare it. For that read WP:COI. After improvement, resubmit the draft, it will be reviewed soon.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChunky Hi, thank you for the quick reply. Starting from the end: yes I do have connection with the topic. I made notification on my user page - as it was asked of me during the Article creation process. I want to be fully transparent about it. As for the policy you sent me - thank you. I read it and hopefully made the appropriate corrections. I checked the sources once again, chose those that were talking more about the topic or were solely dedicated to it (e.g. independent profile pieces, interviews), were relevant and confirming the key facts (not anything random like: Warsaw is capital of Poland). TBH it's more difficult than I thought to create a properly documented article - even if one knows the subject. Thank you for your help! Msg 2507 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement but I think you need to read WP:BETTER especially WP:Encyclopedic style to make the article structure better in an encyclopaedic tone. Regarding conflict of interest, you can visit WP:Teahouse and ask them how to declare WP:COI and WP:PAID. They will let you know more clearly. After all improvements, resubmit the draft. Hope it will be reviewed soon. Thank you!. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Declined - Request for reconsideration.

Hello TheChunky,

Thank you for reviewing & for your feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Braden_Allen_King. Although, I do not agree with the outcome. In the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page under Entertainers it says, “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions”. This entertainer has had significant roles in 6 notable stage productions, 2 of those being Broadway productions, which is the pinnacle of the American musical theatre industry. I would think that 500+ stage performances in these notable productions would be considered “multiple”. This page is also backed by published & reliable Broadway sources, for instance: Playbill, BroadwayWorld, Broadway Podcast Network & IBDB.  I don’t see how this entertainer wouldn’t be considered notable, based on the aforementioned requirements. If possible, I would like to request a different editor and a different set of eyes to review this. Someone with American musical theatre knowledge would be helpful and more suitable to review this page. If that is not an option, let me know what I can do to help this page become accepted. Theatreman90 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theatreman90 Hi,

I understand that you believe the person you submitted for a Wikipedia draft is notable, and in some cases, that may be true if certain criteria are met. However, notability also relies on the reliability and verification of the sources provided.

From the sources you provided, I noticed that many of them are primary sources or passing mentions, which are not considered reliable for determining notability. For example, the first source from the Internet Broadway Database is a primary source, and the second source from Playbill is not opening and showing a 403 Forbidden error. Additionally, the third source from BroadwayWorld is connected to the subject, which makes it unreliable for determining notability.

Furthermore, many of the other sources you provided, such as the official website of Braden Allen King and the Prom Music website, are also primary sources and cannot be considered for notability. Direct interviews, such as the one from the Broadway Podcast Network, are also not considered as independent sources for determining notability.

The 4th is "EastbayTimes" which again is a passing mention for the above subject. Then we come to the 5th source, which is "Lesher Art Center", which is a primary source for the award, can't be considered again. Now, if we observe the 7th source, which is "BroadwayWorld" again, so it's primary and can't be considered for notability. Now, the 7th source is "ActorsAccess", which is not reliable. Now, the 8th source is "BroadwayWorld" again which is not reliable for notability, The 9th source is "the official website of Braden", which is again a primary source and connected to the subject, which can't be considered for notability. Then we have the 10th source: "Broadway Podcast Network", which might be reliable, but direct interviews are not considered independent sources, so again, not considered for notability. Now, the 11th source is "BETM The Sky Kid", which is not reliable and primary and can't be considered for notability. Now the 12th source: Prom Music is again primary and cannot be considered for notability. Now, the 13th source: "Buffalo Rising" is a passing mention that can't be considered notable. Now, the 14th source: "New Jersey Stage" is again a passing mention and can't be considered for notability. Now, 15th source: "Variety" is a passing mention for this subject, which is again not considered noteworthy. Now, the 16th source is the official website of Braden, which is again not considered noteworthy. The 17th source is "App.com" is reliable and notable. The 18th source is "Plan B Entertainment" can be considered for notability. Now 19th source: "V Media Backstage" can be considered notable. Now, 20th source: "BroadwayWorld" is a primary and also passing mention, which can't be considered for notability. The 21st source is "Prom Musical", which is again primary and can't be considered for notability. Now the 22nd source: "Ticket Holders Award" is again primary and can't be considered for notability.

In order for a Wikipedia draft to be accepted, it is important to provide reliable and independent sources that verify the notability of the subject. I recommend researching and finding additional sources that meet these criteria before resubmitting your draft. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to help.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChunky Hi,
Thank you for getting back to me. I do agree with most of your feedback & added more secondary sources to the page. What I don’t agree with is your thought on IBDB being a primary source. It is the first site listed on ‘The Harvard Theatre Collection: A Guide for Researchers’ “Secondary Sources” page. Also, BroadwayWorld.com may be a primary source, but it does not have a direct connection to the subject of the wikipedia article. I’m sorry you are having trouble accessing the Playbill article. I have no issues with that site being pulled up on my end. BETM The Sky Kid is a fan website, making it a secondary source & has been considered a reliable source in other actors’ wikipedia pages. How many secondary source references do I need for this subject to qualify for a wikipedia page? Here are some of the secondary sources I have referenced: IBDB, Plan B Entertainment, V Media Backstage, APP., BETM The Sky Kid, TheatreStorm & TicketHoldersLA (Review). Let me know if there’s anything else I can do to further the progress of this wikipedia page. Thank you. Theatreman90 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please visit WP:Teahouse to get help regarding this from more experienced users. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You have got a email

Hello, TheChunky. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.@Divineplus

Divineplus (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yayzy

Hi TheChunky,

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Yayzy earlier. I rewritten it almost completely and was wondering if you'd have the time to have another look at it? Any tips, contributions, help is greatly appreciated. Jerry3zs (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerry3zs: Hi, hope you are doing well. I still believe this article is written like an advertisement of a company. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement. If you need help from more experienced users, please visit WP: Teahouse. Thank you.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cute goat for you!

Salam Al Kashmiri! Absolutely wonderful contributions you have made to Wikipedia. As a new editor, I would definitely look up to you and follow your steps.

NamkeenChai (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NamkeenChai: Walaikum Asalam! Thank you for the cute goat. Well, I am more focused on WikiProject Chenab Valley, which deals with the addition, editing, and improvement of articles related to Chenab Valley. I would love to invite you to contribute articles there. Also, there is a message on your talk page regarding your multiple accounts; please clarify there why you use this second account because this may violate some policies if multiple accounts are created without any reason. Thanks again.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, would love to contribute in whatever capacity I can.
Also, I'm getting used to the interface, will get back to the talk page in a while. NamkeenChai (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page declined - Robert (Bob) Gartland

I would like some assistance with the references that you have questioned? I will keep adding more references but I’ve already referenced several website sites, news sites, and Wiki links. I would appreciate some support to ensure this page is accepted. I’m new ish to wiki. I tried to follow convention of other sites about living people which have been published .

Thanks GeelongManifesto (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GeelongManifesto: Your Draft:Robert (Bob) Gartland was declined because it don't have enough reliable citations to establish notability of that person. (See WP:NBIO). The article tone is not like an encyclopaedic tone. You must visit WP:YFA and WP:BETTER to learn how to write better articles. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 05:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson fermion

Hi TheChunky. Concerning your declining of the Draft:Wilson fermion article (I didn't write it but I feel like I must advocate on its behalf); you seemed to decline it on the basis of its references/notability. However, the article clearly lists 3 secondary, reliable, and independent textbook references (they are the standard textbooks in lattice field theory) which each have a in-depth cover of the topic. Wilson fermions are THE lattice fermion discretization of the field along with staggered fermions. The original paper (by Wilson, cited in the article) has 2.8k citations, which in a physics context is insanely good. I also did research in lattice field theory for a year last year so I have a solid grasp of the area of physics to be able to say that Wilson fermions are fundamental to it. I agree that the article is stubby in how it's written, but this is a separate issue.

Either way it would be helpful to know what specifically the article is missing in the reference/notability context? OpenScience709 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope you are doing well. If you are an expert in that field and you or the creator believe that this article establishes notability, any of you can resubmit it. I declined it earlier after observing general notability criteria which I think haven't met. And having "3 secondary sources" is not a notability criteria; it is just an essay (See WP:THREE). If the creator needs more help from experienced users, he or she can visit WP:Teahouse.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
Thanks for the speedy reply! My argument was more that the 3 sources are notable rather than that 3 sources exist, but either way thanks for the comment! I'll resubmit it. Best, OpenScience709 (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Salam! I hope you are fine. I have added some drafts related to WikiProject Chenab Valley in to do list, where you are also a member or participant. Kindly review the articles and clear the log. Thank You. Moj '-(talk) 10:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yana_Kay

Hi Chunky! I am very surprised by your decision! The person I'm trying to write an Article about is part of Category - Eurovision, and for long time belongs to a fairly steady stream of musical life of Latvia. I am comparing already existing articles of persons from the same categories - Mārtiņš Freimanis, Ingus Baušķenieks and Markus Riva. And these Articles are more than poor in content and citation level. The content of this Articles includes material that real meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations, as opposed to the target article?? Of course, I saw Referencing for beginners and Citing sources and learn it (btw - from 2006 year in Wiki). Please consider about your opinion regarding these long-existing Articles. Arminius-fun-nick (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminius-fun-nick:, I hope you are doing well. First of all, as you said, you have been on Wikipedia since 2006, but your account shows you joined within the past year. If you are using multiple accounts, make it clear as per WP:MULTIPLE. Now, the second thing is your draft; if you have read WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, you must know that YouTube, Apple Music, and all websites like them are not reliable and that it is discouraged to use these on a Wikipedia article. The notability of a person on Wikipedia depends upon secondary, reliable, and independent sources, which means the subject should not be connected with these sources. And none of the citations added in the draft look reliable; most of them are primary sources, which are from unreliable websites. And thanks for bringing the above three articles to my attention, of which I quickly observed that two don't meet the notability criteria. The relevant tags will be placed on them, and they can be draftfied.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, and should I prove to you that I have been on Wikipedia since 2006? I consider it unethical to be proud of a personal list of articles written and the number of edits made, to give and accept virtual rewards for this, as is usually done here. You offended me very much right away with your suspicions, that I use multiple accounts. I really don't like empty discussions in Wiki background, and I wrote time by time all the time without creating an account, from different IPs. it's not against the Wiki rules, is it? Only recently I noticed that new articles create in en.wikipedia is impossible without an account. So I had to create this account one year ago. I will delete links to YouTube, Apple Music, etc (but I I can foresee that in 2-3 years it would be admitted as reliable source, why not?). Will it help the case with accept this draft and move to current article? Arminius-fun-nick (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheChunky&oldid=1135955979"