Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
'''If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any ''new'' question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.'''
<div style="background-color:#ddffdd; padding:10px 20px 10px 20px; text-align:left; width: 80%; margin:0 auto 5px auto">If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.</div>
<!-- '''From time to time non-confirmed editors won't be able to edit this page. If you can't post a message to me here, please do so ].''' -->
<div style="background-color:#eeeeff; padding:10px 20px 10px 20px; text-align:left; width: 80%; margin:0 auto 5px auto">I've assiduously followed the advice on ] and have shunted earlier banter and repartee to:
{{archive box|
*] (13 Nov 2004 to 23 Feb 2005)
*] (24Feb 2004 to 27May 2005)
*] (13 Nov 2004 to 23 Feb 2005)
*] (29May2005 to 17Sep 2005)
*] (24 Feb 2004 to 27 May 2005)
*] (18Sep 2005 to 9Nov 2005)
*] (29 May 2005 to 17 Sep 2005)
*] (from13 Nov 2005)
*] (18 Sep 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
*] (13 Nov 2005 to 22 May 2006)
</div>
*] (23 May 2006 to 4 Oct 2006)
*] (6 Oct 2006 to 25 Nov 2006)
*] (26 Nov 2006 to 8 Jan 2007)
*] (6 Jan 2007 to 8 Feb 2007)
*] (8 Feb 2007 to 4 Apr 2007)
*] (5 Apr 2007 to 22 May 2007)
*] (27 May 2007 to 28 July 2007)
*] (22 July 2007 to 28 August 2007)
*] (28 August 2007 to end 2007)
*] (Jan–Mar 2008)
*] (Apr–Jun 2008)
*] (Jul–Sep 2008)
*] (Oct–Dec 2008)
*] (Jan–Mar 2009)
*] (Apr–Jun 2009)
*] (Jul–Sep 2009)
*] (Oct–Dec 2009)
*] (Jan–Mar 2010)
*] (Apr–Jul 2010)
*] (Aug–Dec 2010)
*] (Jan–Jun 2011)
*] (Jul–Dec 2011)
*] (2012)
*] (2013)
*] (2014)
*] (2015–2017)
*] (2018–2019)
*] (2020)
*] (2021–2022)
*] (2023)
}}
== English modal auxiliary verbs ==
'''Please write any new question at the bottom of the page.'''
Hi Hoary. Am I right in guessing that ] in in regards to ]? I don't believe there is a script to automate the work, but it's a task I've taken on for other editors before (at ] for instance).<br>If I can help just let me know, I'd drop a message on the talk page today and could do the work tomorrow. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 13:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
== This may help ==
]
Here, have a strange flying thing. ] 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
:That's a very generous offer, {{U|ActivelyDisinterested}}. Yes, that's the article that's probably the most unsightly, and it promises to become more unsightly as I get around to revising the large percentage of its content that I've so far only tinkered with.
:Wow, cool. And great color registration. Thanks! -- ] 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
: is the 12 December '23 edit in which I added Rp templates for the first time.
::I was thinking more of your recent wielding of the ]. ] 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:You'll see such grotesqueries as
== ] ==
Hi, in another vein altogether... Would you mind having a look at this article and especially the discussion that has started on ? Since you have a grounded perspective (as it were) on the issue of naming conventions I think we could benefit by your thoughts on whether this article ought to be moved back to "Ilham Aliyev". In any event, having an administrator who is aware of possible brewing trouble could be helpful later on. Thanks! ] 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::Both ''can'' and ''could'' can be used to make requests:<sup></sup>{{Rp|page=865}} '''''Can'''/'''could''' you pass me the cheese?'' means "Please pass me the cheese" (where ''could'' is more polite<sup></sup>{{Rp|page=940}}). Either can be used with ''possibly'': '''''Can'''/'''could''' you '''possibly''' pass me the cheese?''<sup></sup>{{Rp|pages=768, 770}} Requests with ''can't'' may sound impatient ('''''Can't''' you be quiet?'')<sup></sup>{{Rp|page=940}}
:I had a feeling you would go the way you did on this article - and I'm still glad to have your input. Thanks for joining the discussion. ] 03:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:That's a short paragraph; as long as the article is using Rp, why does it not end:
::Ah, but I'm not satisfied with what I wrote, which I wrote when too sleepy. One good thing is that the argument is an intelligent one (or anyway was before I came along and mucked it up; I haven't looked at it since): I hope it continues that way, and I may return to it if I can sort out my own ideas first. -- ] 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
::. . . Requests with ''can't'' may sound impatient ('''''Can't''' you be quiet?'')<sup></sup>{{Rp|pages=768, 770, 865, 940}}
:::It's a borderline case, I believe... which makes it more interesting than usual. You've mucked nothing. ] 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:? Answer: because I think it very likely that I haven't finished shuffling sentences and clauses around. A fanatical attention to detailed referencing should help conscientious and informative referencing in the event of reshuffling. When I'm fairly happy with the article, I might simplify (defanaticize) the referencing somewhat; but till then, I'd prefer it if the Sfn-referencing is as "granular" as the Rp referencing is now. And another matter with later reshuffling in mind: Conversion of consecutive Sfn indices to singular Sfnm indices is probably something better left till later.
== Stephanie Adams ==
:] certainly has complexity: footnotes that have not one but multiple references, etc. I particularly appreciate cartographic illustration of a footnote.
Left a post for you, I've done ALOT of research on this chick, she has NO pr people here , and never has, read the comment on her talk page that was "mysteriously" reverted. I have talked to her on the phone as she had a tv blaring and was drinking and talking to Home boys in the background.
:NB I'll be away from my computer during much of the 29th (UTC+09:00), and from the 31st to the 2nd. -- ] (]) 05:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
She wasnt even the playmate of the month, just a lady in playboy, the rest of the stuff about her has been CREATED by her to make her APPEAR something she is not. READ all of her comment archive, she has been proven to have MANY sock puppets, and was eventually canned from Wiki.
::I could convert all the refs to sfn, and once you done with the article and all the refs are in there final place compound the sfn templates into sfnm for the sake of tidiness. I've dropped a note of the articles talk page, just in case anyone wants to object. It's probably unnecessary but I don't want to get caught up by ]. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you, ]. No, I too don't think that anyone will object. However, when I invite objections to changes that I propose, I usually give people one week. I mean, if people can complain about unilateral changes, I think they can also reasonably complain about the short period within which they were expected to learn of a proposed change, evaluate it, and agree/object to it. -- ] (]) 12:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Maybe I'll leave it to the 2nd. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that's for the better. -- ] (]) 22:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
:Using {{tlx|sfnp}}, and for multi-cites {{tlx|sfnmp}}, would be more consistent with CS1 output. I have no idea why people keep using the inconsistent {{tnull|sfn}} pair; I guess just because they're a letter shorter? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::My first impressions of Sfnp/Sfnmp are (i) that they differ from Sfn/Sfnm only in adding parentheses, and (ii) that the added parentheses don't help explain anything and are entirely superfluous. I am of course open to being shown either that I've misunderstood what I think I understand or that I've overlooked some other and more important difference. I ''think'' what you're saying is that when mousing over a link, clicking through, and eventually landing at, say, "Sorabji, K. S. (1947) ''Mi contra fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician'', the path to the latter (with year in parentheses) will be a slightly smoother experience for the reader if the intermediate stage is "Sorabji (1947)" than if it's "Sorabji 1947". Is this right? -- ] (]) 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::I have no input on this, sfn Vs sfnp is a stylistic choice that doesnt effect the conversion work I offered to help with. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 13:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
:::], let's see what ] says. Incidentally, the (featured!) article ] is a conspicuous example of an "sfn-ish" (?) kind of referencing that put me off Sfn(p) for a long time: click on the index number to a reference and you are told, say "Roberge (2020), p. 251"; you then are not given a link to, but instead have to look for yourself within an alphabetically arranged list in order to find, "Roberge, Marc-André (2020). . Retrieved 1 August 2020." I find Rp hugely preferable to that implementation of a two-stage process; though of course Sfn(p) doesn't have this major flaw. -- ] (]) 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Yes text based short form refs are problematic. There are a large number of articles with reference styles similar to ] were many of the cites are missing, but there is no indication that there's anything wrong. It's not a referencing style I'd use or support. One of the benefits of sfn or similar templates is that they both provide a direct link ''and'' emit error messages is the cite is missing.<br>When it comes to sfn vs sfnp, even though I've spent years doing detail obsessed edits, I can't bring myself to care whether a displayed cite is comma or period separate. I'm more worried that the cites actually exist. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 01:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Yeesh. That one's a trainwreck because someone has manually done <code><nowiki><ref name=au>Roberge (2020), p. 308</ref></nowiki></code> throughout the page. The vast majority of that <code>name=au</code> stuff is not needed at all because these specific-page citations are not being reused, and the entire thing could be done with {{tlx|sfnp|Roberge|2020|p=308}} syntax (I used to think that <code><nowiki><ref name="au">{{harvp|Roberge|2020|p=308}}.</ref></nowiki></code> was needed for a named reference that is actually reused, but this turns out not to be the case, at least not any more; {{tlx|sfnp}} will now create merged single references when reused with the same page number.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::As for why to use {{tlx|sfnp}}, it is because the "stylistic choice" as you call it has already been made; it is built into all the CS1/CS2 templates, which are used in over 99% of our articles. So we should not, per ], be veering confusingly back and forth between "Smith (2012), p. 17" formatting in one citation (short or long) and "Smith 2012, p. 17" in another (short) one. And the parentheses/round-brackets are not superfluous; it makes it perfectly clear what the date of the publication is, which can matter more than one thinks, especially given titles that contain dates and even organizational authors that contain dates ("Foo Convention Editorial Committee 2012" or whatever), which may not match the actual publication date. So, yes, there will be the "smoother experience" when going from a short "Smith (2012), p. 17" citation to the long "Smith, A. B. (2017) "Some Title Here", ''Journal Name'', ..." full citation, but there are other considerations.<p>Ultimately, there's not really a way to force people to use {{tlx|sfnp}}, and we're unfortunately stuck with {{tlx|sfn}} looking like it's "the standard" or "the default" simply because its name is shorter, but when I encounter {{tlx|sfn}} in a CS1 article and change it to {{tlx|sfnp}} to get consistent citation formatting per CITESTYLE, no one reverts me. I have yet to run into anyone demanding the no-paren style, probably because they already understand that it's forced by the main citation templates ({{tlx|cite book}}, {{tlx|cite web}}, even CS2 {{tlx|citation}}) already. If someone's doing all-manual (untemplated) citations to enforce some particular off-site style manual's citation style, and it demands dates in "2012" format instead of "(2012)", then I wouldn't change it; while that manual formatting is a butt-pain for everyone and serves no real purpose, it is technically permissible by ]. "I'm more worried that the cites actually exist." Certainly, but we might as well be consistent with them while we're creating them or cleaning them up. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)</p>
::::OK, ], you've persuaded me. ], let's go with Sfnp. Now, I tend to think that far too many new articles are created (benevolent suggestions such as make me feel slightly ill), and whether for this reason or simply out of laziness create few myself; but in future when I do I'll try to have them use Sfnp. -- ] (]) 04:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::No worries, I'm good either way. I'll get started on it in the new year, per your suggestion. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 04:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::I've always thought pointing new editors to article creation was an exercise in sadism. They write the article and submit, and only afterwards are notability standards explained and after that come the explanation of how their sources aren't reliable. It must feel like being trapped in a Kafka novel. Starting to edit Misplaced Pages can be a steep learning curve, starting to edit Misplaced Pages by creating an article is a sheer cliff. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 04:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::No, ], it's worse. This is a suggestion made to somebody who'd hoped, and probably still hopes, to create ''an'' article about an author. It's not very obvious that she's notable, in the Misplaced Pages sense, though she might be (I haven't started to investigate). It's obvious that she's had a lot of books published, and although I happen not to have heard of any of them, it's easy to imagine that at least a few have got three or more reviews in newspapers, magazines or similar. My suggestion: If the aim is to create a draft about the author, start by looking for substantive reviews of the books, and summarizing those. (I had ] in mind. But then I ].) The countersuggestion (not mine!): Aim for an article on each of several of the books, urgh. -- ] (]) 04:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Williams is probably notable. I cleaned up the draft a little. Haven't done any sourcing work on it. I don't have much sympathy in this specific case, because it appears to be a paid editor, and he's rude to everyone. But the general idea of "use Articles for Creation', yeah, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. You're much better off reading the core content policies, then doing your best in userspace and putting it in mainspace when you think it'll float, where the burden will be on deletionists to prove your article should be deleted, rather than on you to convince various drive-by AfC reviewers that it is good enough to pass their personal muster. More than half the drafts I've significantly tweaked have already been good enough to pass GNG before I got there, and just needed work on encyclopedic writing quality, formatting of citations, MoS tweaks, proper categorization, etc. Yet they have mostly stayed stuck in draft-space. (The other half were dreck, either on patently non-notable people/companies/products, or just non-encyclopedic ideas like "Internet meme trolling in Kerala" which isn't any different from online goofing off everywhere else in the world.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::It seems that it was launched by her husband (yes of course, COI) and subsequently paying editor. It's not obvious that the paid editor did anything, though I can't really be bothered to look. That first editor has fessed up to the payment, which he now regrets, and to the COI. He's been rude, but fairly selectively and I think only when provoked -- and look, he's Australian, and Australians have a robust turn of phrase. I can easily imagine that the subject of the draft is notable, but these days I'm soft-pedalling help with drafts: It's too time-consuming. (.) -- ] (]) 06:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Agreed. I barely touch drafts other than to do some "watch and learn" cleanup on them. Actually trying to do the source research for them is often wasted effort. Same goes for most AfD/prod targets, and user-space drafts, and CoI edit requests for that matter (though I get asked to do an inordinate number of the last, just because I've taken the time to do some in the past – kinda coming back to haunt me). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 00:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::There's so much boosterism hereabouts that there's a risk that ''every'' draft () seems to the tired reviewer no more than part of an ad campaign. A recipe for reviewer cynicism indeed. (I'm glad I later did , even though I'm still not happy with the result.) -- ] (]) 06:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::]Amazing conversion job done! A tip of the hat to ] for , which at first glance seem to have taken 94 minutes, and which certainly result in a greatly improved look 'n' feel. But then I start to wonder how long it took for ActivelyDisinterested to work on the first of the series edits before clicking the "Publish changes" button. I fear that it would have taken me most of one day. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested! (And now I have to get down to improving the article.) -- ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a lady who claims to make 70 million a year.
:::::::Anytime I can help just let me know. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''«]»'' °]°</small> 10:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
== A question about the usage of pictures ==
Yes, yes Im sure she does.
Hello hoary I have a question about pictures, so I created a page on ], and I just wanted to ask a quick question. When it comes to the pictures of famous people that is widely used by social media, magazines, blogs do I need to get permission from the photographer who took the picture of the celebrity before uploading it and making a use of it on Misplaced Pages. Because am trying to make use of a Nigerian celebrity in a ]. ] (]) 03:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
/sarcasm ''...added at 07:55, 27 May 2006 by ]''
:Yes, you need that. ], the photographs you're describing, if they can be uploaded at all, should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. So you're asking a Wikimedia Commons question and not a Misplaced Pages question. Regardless of either (i) how often the photograph is reproduced or (ii) how famous the person shown is, the copyright holder (usually but not always the photographer) must explicitly permit its reproduction in Wikimedia Commons, from which it can be used by Misplaced Pages, or anyone else (even for commercial purposes). If you can't determine whether/how an image is copyrighted, then you have to assume that it's conventionally copyrighted ("All rights reserved"), and therefore is unusable. Please see "]". -- ] (]) 05:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:If the above is true, you clearly have hugely more interest in ] than I do.
:You make one surprising claim: that Adams wasn't a playmate of the month. This is incompatible with what's written on ]. That's very surprising, as that's the kind of article (dealing as it does with commercialized softcore porn) that we can expect to have been edited assiduously. Please either (a) explain this misunderstanding on the talk page of ] or (b) retract your claim.
:Also, please sign your comments. This is easy: <nowiki>"~~~~"</nowiki>. Thanks. -- ] 08:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:Incidentally, ], I see that ] is still an orphan. You've added ] to it; adding it to ] might be a good idea. -- ] (]) 23:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
It is evident that ] has zippo credibility and has an established track record for harrassing other users, making false claims to be friends with Jimbo, making idle threats of being able to ban other users AND admins. At what point does WikiPedia find permabanning an IP the only responsible thing to do? Stephanie Adams, by the way, was undoubtedly a Playmate of the Month from Nov. 1992. ] 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yes am actually not done with the article unfortunately I don't have a lot of time so I often create pages like this and then come back to the page to add more things. Am assuming that by designating the article as an orphan that means it needs to be linked to other pages ie like this right ]? ] (]) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
:::], if ] was/is worth making, it's worth reading. But in order to read it, people hove to encounter it; and few people will encounter it because they ''guess'' that it might exist and therefore type "African hair threading" in the "Find" box. (After all, it could instead be titled "Hair threading" or something else.) Rather, they'll encounter it via links from elsewhere. A few such links ], but adding ] to ] seems a good idea to me. -- ] (]) 22:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Alright thank you so much ] (]) 17:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
== Question about editing. ==
:I'm well aware that the IP has made various bizarre statements about other users (Wales included). I haven't encouraged these but I have mostly ignored them. I also have good reason to think that Adams was a playmate, and indeed the IP confirmed this on the talk page of that article shortly after denying it here. These oddities aside, I haven't been worried by what I've noticed of the conduct of this IP. Amid all the bluster, he has (rather windily) made an interesting point: that Adams's "books" aren't actually books. I've tried to investigate this claim, that's all. -- ] 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Hoary is the stament bellow true
==Eugene Richards==
No problem with POV on talk pages. So if you have the passion, why don't you start the article with a stub at least and then the name can go on the name space page of photographers? ] 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
== ] and ] ==
I am wondering if it is time to invoke ]. What do you think? ] 01:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:It was stuff like . But there now seems to be some sort of collaboration being hammered out on the Talk page, so I'm less inclined to fuss now. ] 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::* "You restoring/ reverting an edit, whether it was by yourself or someone else '''= your edit''', since you are the last editor to implement/ introduce, that edit.
::Hoary, you made a great point about the opening to the Elvis article. I'd like to see your version of last we put together. I'm using the ] article as a model, and would like to see this page become a candidate for a featured article in August around his passing anniversary; if we can hammer out an acceptable article in length and content - like the Armstrong one. Hopefully Onefortyone will collaborate with this effort, I've been trying to get him to do this all along, and requested page protection until we hammer out the best article - section by section. The AOL user is quite annoying - not sure why he doesn't get an user account and contribute rather than disrupt. I welcome any criticism of myself, as I might have become a little abrasive with Onefortyone after reading his past history with celebrity pages; and any criticism of my edits - the most important task in my book, is to get a NPOV, balanced encyclopedic article done, that can be featured. --] 02:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::* Not only did you introduce/ re-introduce non factual information or fabrication (original research) into the encyclopedia, this also results in misleading readers as well as other editors having to clean up (fix) your instigated, disorder.
::::::Please refer to the previous responses above, if you are still confused and/or need any more information regarding this section."
To give you context I edited a page and added a different genre of music which I felt best describes a song i later on reverted the editing as a result leaving the edit as I originally found it. But some other user is giving me a warning even after I explained to the user that it wasn't me who initially put in the original genre i told the user that my edit was a revert to how I found it but the user still insists that am wrong because i was the last person to edit the page. There is also another user who gave me a warning about another edit that I didn't make I found this puzzling because this other editor has been on Misplaced Pages for a long time and seems to be a pro on the platform and as such I was expecting this user to make use of the view history tab to figure out who made the initial edit but this user didn't do that. Am guessing since I was the last person to edit the page the user is giving me a warning. So my question is if I edited a page and later reverted the page to how I found it and it turns out the information I revereted back was wrong am I the right one to give a warning to? also if an edit I never made on a page is wrong since am the last person to edit the page should I be given a warning since am the last person to edit a page? ] (]) 14:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::I'm beginning to think Onefortyone isn't interested in working straight, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems he works in circles and in a confusing manner - per the opening where he wrote a pretty good one, I then improved the ending a bit, you offered comment on that, I agreed that it needed work (take out icon, etc.) he then eradicates his good version down to nothing as somehow all that information was wrong because it is "fan stuff." I concur with your comments about his music style in the opening or music...as mentioned above, if you take the last good version I edited on the talk page and edit it yourself to include some material on the music, replace icon with better wording, then we can have a good opening. I proposed a first section as well, that I would welcome input on improvement to. Thanks. --] 03:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:], most of Misplaced Pages's articles are somewhere between "problematic" and "bad". Let's say that I'm keeping an eye on one that's "not satisfactory, but decent on balance", and that somebody suddenly makes a lot of edits to it that, taken together, in my opinion, damage it, and that I revert these edits. The reversion is indeed my edit, and I'm responsible for it. However, I'm not responsible for the veracity/quality of every part that I restore, and I'm not claiming that nothing that I deleted was an improvement. All I'm saying is that the version I'm restoring is, as a whole, superior to the one that I reverted.
May I ask you to include the first paragraphs from the 'Sandbox' in the ] article (see ), as there seems to be a consensus concerning these passages now. Thank you. Further, I am of the opinion that the "Allegations of racism" section should not be removed, as there are other peer-reviewed studies deeling with this topic. See, for instance, . What do you think? ] 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:An argument seems to have developed on your talk page. I haven't read it. I do notice that one user is '''<u>raising their voice via boldface and underlining</u>'''. This is about as bad as WRITING ALL IN CAPITALS, and it's a major reason why I didn't read. Another major reason is that I know nothing about the subject area. Anyway, as you continue to discuss this, avoid talking about who did what or who was/is responsible for what; instead, concentrate on what the article says, and how this is (or isn't) based on ]. If you need more input, perhaps invite people at ] or ] to go to the article's talk page. (Try to avoid phrasing your message in a way that might start up a parallel discussion. It's far better if a discussion goes on at just one place.) Hope this helps. -- ] (]) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
:The article is no longer protected, so you can proceed -- but please keep a sense of perspective and provide sources for what you write. ] 07:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Alright thank you for your reply ] (]) 14:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
== Thoughts on draft ==
Hi User Hoary. Since unprotecting the Elvis Presley a number of questionable comments have slipped in from allegations of homosexuality (which were debunked numerous times in the discussion forum) to allegations of incest. These claims are all from the same User time and time again and really do diminish the article. I believe the page should be protected again. Thanks. ]
It looks like you declined ] before me. Checking the history shows that most of the same sources were cited that are now. What are your thoughts on the analysis I did on the talk page? Would you still decline it or do you think it would have a decent chance in mainspace or an AfD? ] (]) 01:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
==Thanks!==
I think my biggest concerns are ] and the fact that the coverage is so local. ] (]) 02:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the blanking of my talk page. (^_^) ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:The name was utterly unfamiliar, ], and when I clicked on the link was utterly unfamiliar too. So I'm relieved to see that this was over a year ago. In the lead, WK was described as a "choreographer and podcast host". There was no further mention of choreography; and the podcasting appeared to be of a single, three-part podcast. The podcast "discusses" such and such; but to what effect, we weren't told. So I'm not at all surprised that I declined the submission. ¶ According to the lead of the , he's no longer a choreographer; but he's a "screenwriter, dance critic, essayist, and podcast host". There is no further mention of screenwriting or dance criticism, no further mention of essays (aside from "two op-eds in the LA Times"), and no mention of podcasting other than of the single, three-part podcast. ¶ I certainly wouldn't have accepted it as ], but I can't be bothered to click on the references (let alone to search for other sources) and decide whether he's "undersold" by the article in its current state (which, for living people, is a rare occurrence in en:WP), and, if not, to launch an AfD. -- ] (]) 06:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
== Resubmitted the article ==
==Regarding naming order==
"PS Oh, I see, it's discussed above on this very talk page. Then we must follow the rules, I suppose. But personally I'm happy to see that Utada (whose music doesn't interest me) and Matsu (of whom I'd never heard) have somehow broken free of a rule that strikes me as stupid. Is the "normal Japanese order" really SN-GN? Yes. Or at least it's that way in most of the Japanese-language print literature that I own that contains Japanese names written in romaji. Japanese-language literature that contains Japanese names written in romaji constitutes a minuscule percentage of Japanese-language literature."
Hello, please review the article that i created. Thank you ] (]) 09:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
But English-language literature from Japan, such as Japanese newspapers like the ], uses Western order. Look at the English-language edition of the Mainichi Shimbun at http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/ and tell me what order you see :) ] 19:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:], I declined your submission ] for two reasons. One was that it had a total of ''one sentence''. Now you want me to review the submission again. It now has a total of ''one sentence''. Do you really believe that I will pass it? You also haven't dealt with the second reason. Where are your summaries of what reliable sources have said about this product? -- ] (]) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::I provided an reliable source to Reference. From official Xiaomi Website and gsmarena about the smartphone. The source are reliable ] (]) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::and what was the second reason? Can you explain please ] (]) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Reliability requires ]. Xiaomi's website is obviously not an independent source. The second reason? That when I declined the submission and when I last looked, your draft had just ''one sentence''. -- ] (]) 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
], you may, if you wish, remove comments from your own user talk page. You may not remove them from other talk pages. I am reverting your removal of comments from this user talk page. -- ] (]) 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:As far as I know, there is no longer any English-language dead-trees edition of the '']''. It's a web-only edition. Still, that's a minor niggle. Yes, English-language Japanese newspapers, perhaps afraid of offending the delicate sensibilities of their conservative anglophone readers, invert the name order. But this isn't the rule in academic books, and WP purports to be an encyclopedia. Further, WP frequently discusses the past; figures from the past have their names in uninverted order, leading to a bizarre (and in my view entirely arbitrary) division between those born before and after the Meiji "restoration". -- ] 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== How to resubmit? ==
==Elvis Presley: movies section==
May I ask you to have a look at the ] article and related pages. ] has started an edit war concerning the movies section. He has repeatedly deleted material which is well sourced. This is not acceptable. See , , , , , etc. ] 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have provided reliable sources to Reference, i changed everything and found some reviews about this phone on website so i provided it to the Reference. I don't know how to resubmit this article ] (]) 05:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:I think he could justifiably claim that the material he deleted is horribly verbose. Still, let's argue over this on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, I've locked the article (again). -- ] 09:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:], you have already resubmitted it. (You did so in .) -- ] (]) 08:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
==Tikal the Echidna==
::Ok, i hope the article will publish sooon :) ] (]) 08:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Given that ] has gone through three Peer Reviews, FAN, and two GAN in the past four months, I request you be a little more specific in your complaints. ] 07:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
== Please, help me! ==
:I've added a second comment ]. -- ] 07:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello dear friend. I almost completely rewrote the article and indicated authoritative sources. The article showed the importance of the site and what it does for the citizens of Kazakhstan. Please check. I hope my article is valid. I will be extremely grateful if you publish my article in full!
==What a...==
...tedious recurring necessity to revert these <s>butt-related ''users''</s>. Thanks for your improvements to Ueno (regardless of the Ga result). Kikai is looking excellent! ] 02:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
] ] (]) 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
== I'm beginning to see things your way ==
== ] ==
I have thought about it and decided that you're right about vandals being glorified too much here on Misplaced Pages. I have even taken the liberty of simplifying ]'s page.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, sir, for making me smile. Was it that long ago?
] (]) 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:I'd noticed. Good work!
:Next job: make all his templates really drab and unimpressive. -- ] 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::I've also simplified the page on the ], another attention-seeking vandal.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Take a look at ], and feel free to agree or disagree there. -- ] 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:], that article looks very dimly familiar, no more. ], I see. And yes, the article is '''' feeble. -- ] (]) 03:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
== One other thing... ==
:The infobox tells us: "Years active 1999–2006". But it has fewer "past members" than it has "members". Then again, perhaps 2006–2024 have been "years passive". -- ] (]) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated ] for deletion from the template namespace. You can find this ].--] <sup>]</sup> 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
== March 2024 GAN backlog drive ==
== Rollback slip-up ==
Hi. Sorry about . I must've hit the rollback button accidentally while reading the diff. I just noticed now while going through my contribs. Weird. ] 00:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:Normally nobody rolls back one of my edits and lives to tell the tale, but since you did recently give me that extraordinary flying thing, I'll make a rare exception. -- ] 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
* On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
* Barnstars will be awarded.
* Interested in taking part? You can ''']''' or ''']'''.
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.
|} (] · ]) ''']''' 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Buidhe@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/August_2023/Mass_message_list&oldid=1193459762 -->
== Badmood ==
== "Autohagiographic state" ==
I loved this neologism you created for use in a reply in the Teahouse recently, and just had to tell you so! I'm sure you won't mind if I use it from time to time in conversation, even though there's no way to give you credit in that mode of communication. ] (]) 16:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I put you in a bad mood. Could you please tell me why? --] 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:Hmm, I don't remember either sensing that I was creating it or remembering having encountered it somewhere: ''auto'' is a ] prefix, so it pretty much tripped off the fingers. But now that you credit/charge me with creating it, I look it up, and am not at all surprised to find that it's sufficiently known to appear in various dictionaries. (It seems to have been popularized via '']'', which I've never read, or wanted to.) ¶ The autohagiography in question was so bad it was funny, kind of. -- ] (]) 12:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
== edit or add the masjedsoleyman municipality of masjedsoleyman? ==
== Mentmore ==
hi there.
If you want a ref:
following your explanation in ] you said i can add the municipality section of masjedsoleyman to the original page of city??? or its better to have other page for municipality??? ] (]) 06:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*Sotheby, Parke, Bernet & Co. ''Mentmore, Vols I - V''. London 1977.
*Clarke R & R. ''Mentmore Catalogue''. Edinburgh 1884. Privatly Published.
*Molinier, Emile. ''Le Mobiier Francais du XVII et fu XVIII Siecle''. Paris
:], the discussion started at ] so let's continue it there rather than here. -- ] (]) 12:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
| text = <big>'''Happy adminship anniversary!'''</big><br />Hi Hoary! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your . Enjoy this special day! ] (]) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
}}
:Thank you. Wow, what a ] it was; I don't think I could muster the stamina and solemnity that seem to be expected of a candidate these days. -- ] (]) 11:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{-}}
Hi, thanks for reviewing articles in the ] project. However, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder for you to 'finish the job' when passing or failing a nominee. It appeared that you failed ] (legitimately), but did not change the template from GAnominee to failedGA, or remove it from the nomination list. I went ahead and did it, so no worries, but I wanted to leave you a reminder for the future. Make sure everything on the "Passed" or "Failed" list gets done when you review an article, it can be hard to identify 'orphans' who've only had part of the process completed. Thanks for your help. ] 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
== Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Five}}
--] (]) 08:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
== A barnstar for you! ==
:Erm . . . actually and too. I see that you've already read and responded to what I wrote ]. Perhaps what I wrote was poorly expressed: I mentersay that I was surprised that my comment was simply ignored. (Perhaps I should be grateful that the Eevee fans didn't go one further and simply ''delete'' my comment.)
::Ok... My bad! They just renominated it so fast that it looked like you hadn't removed it from the list. I've recently had to remind a few new reviewers about removing things from the list, and I wrongly put you into that category. I'm getting a little annoyed by the editors who feel like they should just nominate something over and over and over, until they hit a lenient reviewer who'll just pass them without reading the comments... ] 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I am awarding you with an admin's barnstar for your work more especially in helping new editors (referenced from your punctual responses to questions in ]). I personally want to commend your work and hope you will keep on the good work.
Best. ] (]) 13:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::It's a bit like eBay, isn't it? Think of some product area in which you're vaguely interested, and look among it for an item that, though written up with unusual care, seems absurdly overpriced. Come back later. You'll see, it will keep coming back, week after week, until some <s>damn fool</s> appreciative connoisseur buys it. ¶ Since you're interested in Japan -- and might have had today's fill of purportedly good articles (which seem to me rather to overrepresent juvenilia) -- ]'s another minor diversion for you. ¶ Got hold of a copy of the big photo book yet? -- ] 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
|}
== More misrepresentation of sources, falsehoods and original research ==
::::I know enough about Japanese script to know that I don't know anything about Japanese script. I thought the English language was a convoluted system, until I started learning Japanese... I haven't been able to find a copy of the Kikai book yet, it's not as easy as I had hoped it would be. ] 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Hoary, could you have another look at the talk page of ]? The draft has been resubmitted again, and it is still filled with misrepresentation of sources, original research and other issues. I'm not entirely sure from a policy standpoint if the draft should be rejected or simply declined again. Each time I go to review it I find more problems. The creator has a long history of misrepresenting sources, as well as COI/UPE. Big time-sink. I think the matter needs admin eyes. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 21:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
::::P.S. If you think ] was bad, you should see ]... ] 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:Uh . . . okay, {{U|Netherzone}}. Yes, the creator has certainly been energetic. Just yesterday I encountered the article ], which I hardly dare even starting to read. -- ] (]) 21:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
== MRAAAOW ==
]
mrrrrrpp meowww ur awesome
] (]) 06:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
== To create new wiki page. ==
I wanted to create new wiki page for the Shri Lal Mahal organization. Its a Indian Rice Miller and Exporter from India. How do I create a new wiki page for this organization? Kindly help me. ] (]) 07:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:You have already asked the same question at the "teahouse", and {{U|331dot}} has already written . I have nothing to add. -- ] (]) 08:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
== our tropical storm enthusiast ==
Hello! I'm pinging you because you were engaging with them at {{slink|WP:Teahouse#Can edit the draft}} yesterday and they seem to have reappeared today at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Teahouse#New typhoon?|nopage=y}} I also found {{slink|Talk:2024 Pacific typhoon season#Copy}} thanks to {{u|Midori No Sora}}'s response. It looks like a basic ] issue but I don't know what the best response is – an IP block for now? ''']''' <small>(''she/her'' · ] · ] · ])</small> 03:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:], sorry, I've been away from my computer. I did think for some time that it might be trolling (there's quite a lot of this at the teahouse), but decided that a (severe) lack of competence was a lot more likely. This person's IP number varies, so even if blocking the latest IP seemed to be justified, it would be ineffectual, and therefore rather pointless. -- ] (]) 22:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::@] no worries, I just didn't know if there might be a more appropriate response than simply closing every thread they start. ''']''' <small>(''she/her'' · ] · ] · ])</small> 22:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::], has there been anything after the thread "]"? (Incidentally, whereas {{U|Cremastra}} is or was guessing "translation issues", I'm guessing some kind of aphasia.) -- ] (]) 22:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I just looked up the latest IP to edit ] and yes, they've added a move request to ]. ''']''' <small>(''she/her'' · ] · ] · ])</small> 23:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I generally say "translation issues" when I'm not sure; I figure it is better to AGF than go around calling people incompetent.
::::I have ] removed the RMTR entry and referred them to ] in the edit summary, although I'm not sure it will do much good. ] (]) 23:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::: You to it, ]. -- ] (]) 23:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
==Discussion at ]==
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. -- ] (]) 19:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
:Just letting you know about this as a courtesy in case you've set your preferences to not receive pings. -- ] (]) 19:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
==Photo==
Hello Hoary, sorry for the bad English I used, what I meant by a photo was like this one.
]
So, I asked how do people create these? --] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 14:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your constructive criticism for my recent article. It is greatly appreciated! ] (]) 03:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
|}
== Help with a Review of my Article ==
Hey Hoary, I hope you are doing well! I just wanted to ask if you could review my article again. I made quite a few changes and took you advice. I explain exactly what I did in a reply to one of your comments. I hope this version works. All the best - Natascha :) ] (]) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:I suppose that this is ]. It still doesn't impress me, but/so I'll let somebody else review it. -- ] (]) 22:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
== ]==
Hi,
I was wanting your help on making this page better. I am wanting someone else to review it but the same person is reviewing and rejecting my draft and leaving unnecessary messages on my talk page. I have seen many other shows on wikipedia that are just stubs but the draft is accepted. Can you tell me what further information I would need and if the links are reliable please? Thanks ] (]) 13:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:], you're asking me about a draft that's about a "2024 Pakistani drama serial", one that "premiered on 19 September 2024" -- which isn't even four weeks ago.
:I know nothing about Pakistani TV, I can't read Urdu, and I don't watch any drama serial in any language, so I'm hardly a good choice for this. Still, I take a look to see if there's anything to comment on. Particularly, the degree of coverage of this serial in reliable sources that are independent of it. I found:
:1. "Before it premiered, the show was already building buzz following the release of its promotional photos and teasers."
:I'd be surprised if it wasn't. Of course TV production companies have vigorous PR campaigns; and interviews -- especially those of star(let)s -- are cheap fodder for magazines, TV chat shows, etc.
:2. A video about it "was met with scrutiny from the public".
:What does this mean beyond "got some views"?
:3. "Fuchsia magazine described the show as highly relatable, praising its ability to connect with audiences through realistic characters and situations that reflect everyday life experiences."
:OK, this is good. But it's just one sentence, based on .
:Why the rush? Why not wait six months? I expect that by that time there'll be intelligent reviews of, and other commentary on, the serial and therefore a lot more meat for a good article. -- ] (]) 22:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
== HEC Paris ==
Hi Hoary. Many thanks again for your help. For info I have informed S0091 : ]. Have a very nice day. Kind Regards. ] (]) 10:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:I appreciate the politeness with which you've made this request of S0091, but I doubt that the request is going to have the result that you want. I agree with . I also think that S0091 seems to have gone a little too far. However, a major deletion shouldn't be reverted because it went a little too far. Instead, argue on ] for the reinstatement of a single, well referenced part of what had been deleted, after you've stripped this part of anything that isn't well referenced (or really doesn't seem important). Incidentally,though you're entitled to edit Misplaced Pages without logging in, I suggest that you get a username and edit as that user. -- ] (]) 23:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks to you. I have started to do it myself when and only when I find external references (secondary sources). I agree with what you say, S0091 seems to have gone a little too far. --] (]) 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi again. Job done. I did not know what to do with the COI on top, so I have left it. If you want to remove it, feel free. Please also do not hesitate to review S0091 and myself contributions. Many thanks for all your tips. Have a very nice day. --] (]) 02:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi again. I have just seen this : https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HEC_Paris&diff=1251076861&oldid=1251045915 ; So I quit, Misplaced Pages is not very serious or it is a place when anybody can do vandalism. Many thanks again for all your support. Have a very nice day. --] (]) 08:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:Take a look at the following (and latest) edit. -- ] (]) 07:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
== Invitation to participate in a research ==
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
]
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->
| text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi Hoary! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] (]) 02:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
}}
== Clarification on Logo Attribution and COI ==
Hey Hoary,
Thank you for pointing this out. I’ve reviewed the concern regarding the ] article and corrected the logo attribution. It was mistakenly marked as "own work" and has now been properly attributed to Gamezop. Please let me know if further adjustments are needed. ] (]) 14:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Morekiranwiki, the authorship is now specified as "Gamezop (uploaded by Morekiranwiki as an employee with permission)". This is commendably clear; thank you. But it raises another point. As an employee, you're paid to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and ] requires that you explicitly declare this in at least one of three ways. One way is in the summary for each relevant edit: this would be awkward and a waste of your time. Another way is in the talk page of each relevant article, draft, etc; and you already come close on ] where you ask about "our company page". And the third (and I think best) way is on ] (where you already declare a COI). -- ] (]) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
Take the survey ''''''.
Kind Regards,
]
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
==] has been nominated for merging==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 15:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor'''
References have been altered as per your request, though dividing up the Coleman bio will take a lot of time. ]<sub>(])</sub><sup>(])</sup> 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
|-
:Issues adressed. ]<sub>(])</sub><sup>(])</sup> 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: center; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In 2024 you were one of the , thank you! --] (]) 14:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! You've given me a lot to work on, but I'm sure that when I'm finished, the article will look a million bucks. And it's all doable. Thanks again ]<sub>(])</sub><sup>(])</sup> 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
|}
:::And now, I've adressed your points, answered some questions, and there's only one point that will be a real hiccup.
:Ha! "Top" as in "top one hundred". (I was number 84.) -- ] (]) 04:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Teahouse protection ==
::::You're doing good work. Well done. However, I think you're rushing. For example, as an illustration of Olivier's early rise, you say what he was doing over a decade after he started, which is ''after'' the Shakespearean breakthrough described in the following paragraph. ¶ There's no rush. If somebody (me) posts a dozen (?) questions or objections on the talk page, there's no obligation to respond to them the next day. Take your time; get it right. ¶ Incidentally, here's another question for you. We're all familiar with the stern paper who thwarts his son's dramatic ambitions. (A ghastly example of this stereotype is in the well-acted but dreadful film ''Dead Poets Society.'') In this article, though, you first say that paper was a stern sort of person, and then, without explanation, say it was he who decided that his son would be an actor. This seems remarkable. ¶ And how about the unusual surname? (Is it Huguenot?) -- ] 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hoary. Thanks for protecting the Teahouse. Given how many IP editors use the Teahouse to ask questions, it might be better to use a much shorter duration even though this specific LTA is so disruptive. Regards. ] (]) 04:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
==Re:GRDT==
:Unfortunately, ], the Teahouse attracts mere attention-seekers -- plural. But an encyclopedia needs mentally mature editors. (Only indirectly related to age: Of course there are mature twelve-year-olds and immature -- or plain senile -- eighty-year-olds.) The mature can wait a few minutes, or even half an hour, before seeing that their question/plea is visible to all. Those demanding instant attention would be better off frequenting some other website. So I have no qualms about the one-week setting, though another administrator might disagree. -- ] (]) 04:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on GDRT. I thought of changing the text when I added it to my user page, but I figured only those with Windows or a Mac would need help knowing where to put it (and I don't know where it should go on a mac). I really doubt a Linux, Unix, GNU, or other OS user will need help putting it in the right place ;) — ] | ''']''' | ] • <small>] • ]</small> 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed, I disagree. As the log shows, we have typically set shorter protection durations for key help pages and noticeboards—usually several hours—when handling this LTA. Longer protections do more to hinder those seeking help without significantly deterring this behavior, as he typically shifts to other pages. That said, I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill. Regards. ] (]) 05:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'll probably provide a link. A lot of people are computer-illiterate, though, so a note about what to do with the file is probably good. Do you think I should just say "your fonts folder" and then specify that for windows it's C:\Windows\Fonts\? The vowels are educated guesses. I'll see if I can find a way to link to an article that explains reconstruction, but as far as I know, no such article exists yet. Regarding footnotes, I always put them after the period. Why, are there some before? If so, I'll fix that. A couple are in the middle of a sentence because it's referencing a specific part (while another reference in the sentence references the other part). Again, thanks for your help. The article is now a GA :). — ] | ''']''' | ] • <small>] • ]</small> 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::], I've brought it down to one day. Anyone wanting to reduce it further is free to do so: no need to ask me. (Incidentally, I'm unaccustomed to this LTA; which other pages does he like to blather in?) -- ] (]) 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.
That's a very generous offer, ActivelyDisinterested. Yes, that's the article that's probably the most unsightly, and it promises to become more unsightly as I get around to revising the large percentage of its content that I've so far only tinkered with.
Here is the 12 December '23 edit in which I added Rp templates for the first time.
You'll see such grotesqueries as
Both can and could can be used to make requests: Can/could you pass me the cheese? means "Please pass me the cheese" (where could is more polite). Either can be used with possibly: Can/could you possibly pass me the cheese? Requests with can't may sound impatient (Can't you be quiet?)
That's a short paragraph; as long as the article is using Rp, why does it not end:
. . . Requests with can't may sound impatient (Can't you be quiet?)
? Answer: because I think it very likely that I haven't finished shuffling sentences and clauses around. A fanatical attention to detailed referencing should help conscientious and informative referencing in the event of reshuffling. When I'm fairly happy with the article, I might simplify (defanaticize) the referencing somewhat; but till then, I'd prefer it if the Sfn-referencing is as "granular" as the Rp referencing is now. And another matter with later reshuffling in mind: Conversion of consecutive Sfn indices to singular Sfnm indices is probably something better left till later.
History of Christianity certainly has complexity: footnotes that have not one but multiple references, etc. I particularly appreciate cartographic illustration of a footnote.
I could convert all the refs to sfn, and once you done with the article and all the refs are in there final place compound the sfn templates into sfnm for the sake of tidiness. I've dropped a note of the articles talk page, just in case anyone wants to object. It's probably unnecessary but I don't want to get caught up by WP:CITEVAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. No, I too don't think that anyone will object. However, when I invite objections to changes that I propose, I usually give people one week. I mean, if people can complain about unilateral changes, I think they can also reasonably complain about the short period within which they were expected to learn of a proposed change, evaluate it, and agree/object to it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Using {{sfnp}}, and for multi-cites {{sfnmp}}, would be more consistent with CS1 output. I have no idea why people keep using the inconsistent {{sfn}} pair; I guess just because they're a letter shorter? — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
My first impressions of Sfnp/Sfnmp are (i) that they differ from Sfn/Sfnm only in adding parentheses, and (ii) that the added parentheses don't help explain anything and are entirely superfluous. I am of course open to being shown either that I've misunderstood what I think I understand or that I've overlooked some other and more important difference. I think what you're saying is that when mousing over a link, clicking through, and eventually landing at, say, "Sorabji, K. S. (1947) Mi contra fa: The Immoralisings of a Machiavellian Musician, the path to the latter (with year in parentheses) will be a slightly smoother experience for the reader if the intermediate stage is "Sorabji (1947)" than if it's "Sorabji 1947". Is this right? -- Hoary (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested, let's see what SMcCandlish says. Incidentally, the (featured!) article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji is a conspicuous example of an "sfn-ish" (?) kind of referencing that put me off Sfn(p) for a long time: click on the index number to a reference and you are told, say "Roberge (2020), p. 251"; you then are not given a link to, but instead have to look for yourself within an alphabetically arranged list in order to find, "Roberge, Marc-André (2020). Opus sorabjianum: The Life and Works of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. Retrieved 1 August 2020." I find Rp hugely preferable to that implementation of a two-stage process; though of course Sfn(p) doesn't have this major flaw. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes text based short form refs are problematic. There are a large number of articles with reference styles similar to Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji were many of the cites are missing, but there is no indication that there's anything wrong. It's not a referencing style I'd use or support. One of the benefits of sfn or similar templates is that they both provide a direct link and emit error messages is the cite is missing. When it comes to sfn vs sfnp, even though I've spent years doing detail obsessed edits, I can't bring myself to care whether a displayed cite is comma or period separate. I'm more worried that the cites actually exist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 01:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeesh. That one's a trainwreck because someone has manually done <ref name=au>Roberge (2020), p. 308</ref> throughout the page. The vast majority of that name=au stuff is not needed at all because these specific-page citations are not being reused, and the entire thing could be done with {{sfnp|Roberge|2020}} syntax (I used to think that <ref name="au">{{harvp|Roberge|2020|p=308}}.</ref> was needed for a named reference that is actually reused, but this turns out not to be the case, at least not any more; {{sfnp}} will now create merged single references when reused with the same page number.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
As for why to use {{sfnp}}, it is because the "stylistic choice" as you call it has already been made; it is built into all the CS1/CS2 templates, which are used in over 99% of our articles. So we should not, per WP:CITESTYLE, be veering confusingly back and forth between "Smith (2012), p. 17" formatting in one citation (short or long) and "Smith 2012, p. 17" in another (short) one. And the parentheses/round-brackets are not superfluous; it makes it perfectly clear what the date of the publication is, which can matter more than one thinks, especially given titles that contain dates and even organizational authors that contain dates ("Foo Convention Editorial Committee 2012" or whatever), which may not match the actual publication date. So, yes, there will be the "smoother experience" when going from a short "Smith (2012), p. 17" citation to the long "Smith, A. B. (2017) "Some Title Here", Journal Name, ..." full citation, but there are other considerations.
Ultimately, there's not really a way to force people to use {{sfnp}}, and we're unfortunately stuck with {{sfn}} looking like it's "the standard" or "the default" simply because its name is shorter, but when I encounter {{sfn}} in a CS1 article and change it to {{sfnp}} to get consistent citation formatting per CITESTYLE, no one reverts me. I have yet to run into anyone demanding the no-paren style, probably because they already understand that it's forced by the main citation templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, even CS2 {{citation}}) already. If someone's doing all-manual (untemplated) citations to enforce some particular off-site style manual's citation style, and it demands dates in "2012" format instead of "(2012)", then I wouldn't change it; while that manual formatting is a butt-pain for everyone and serves no real purpose, it is technically permissible by WP:STYLEVAR. "I'm more worried that the cites actually exist." Certainly, but we might as well be consistent with them while we're creating them or cleaning them up. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, SMcCandlish, you've persuaded me. ActivelyDisinterested, let's go with Sfnp. Now, I tend to think that far too many new articles are created (benevolent suggestions such as this make me feel slightly ill), and whether for this reason or simply out of laziness create few myself; but in future when I do I'll try to have them use Sfnp. -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I've always thought pointing new editors to article creation was an exercise in sadism. They write the article and submit, and only afterwards are notability standards explained and after that come the explanation of how their sources aren't reliable. It must feel like being trapped in a Kafka novel. Starting to edit Misplaced Pages can be a steep learning curve, starting to edit Misplaced Pages by creating an article is a sheer cliff. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 04:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
No, ActivelyDisinterested, it's worse. This is a suggestion made to somebody who'd hoped, and probably still hopes, to create an article about an author. It's not very obvious that she's notable, in the Misplaced Pages sense, though she might be (I haven't started to investigate). It's obvious that she's had a lot of books published, and although I happen not to have heard of any of them, it's easy to imagine that at least a few have got three or more reviews in newspapers, magazines or similar. My suggestion: If the aim is to create a draft about the author, start by looking for substantive reviews of the books, and summarizing those. (I had this in mind. But then I don't know jack.) The countersuggestion (not mine!): Aim for an article on each of several of the books, urgh. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Williams is probably notable. I cleaned up the draft a little. Haven't done any sourcing work on it. I don't have much sympathy in this specific case, because it appears to be a paid editor, and he's rude to everyone. But the general idea of "use Articles for Creation', yeah, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. You're much better off reading the core content policies, then doing your best in userspace and putting it in mainspace when you think it'll float, where the burden will be on deletionists to prove your article should be deleted, rather than on you to convince various drive-by AfC reviewers that it is good enough to pass their personal muster. More than half the drafts I've significantly tweaked have already been good enough to pass GNG before I got there, and just needed work on encyclopedic writing quality, formatting of citations, MoS tweaks, proper categorization, etc. Yet they have mostly stayed stuck in draft-space. (The other half were dreck, either on patently non-notable people/companies/products, or just non-encyclopedic ideas like "Internet meme trolling in Kerala" which isn't any different from online goofing off everywhere else in the world.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems that it was launched by her husband (yes of course, COI) and subsequently paying editor. It's not obvious that the paid editor did anything, though I can't really be bothered to look. That first editor has fessed up to the payment, which he now regrets, and to the COI. He's been rude, but fairly selectively and I think only when provoked -- and look, he's Australian, and Australians have a robust turn of phrase. I can easily imagine that the subject of the draft is notable, but these days I'm soft-pedalling help with drafts: It's too time-consuming. (Most recent example.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I barely touch drafts other than to do some "watch and learn" cleanup on them. Actually trying to do the source research for them is often wasted effort. Same goes for most AfD/prod targets, and user-space drafts, and CoI edit requests for that matter (though I get asked to do an inordinate number of the last, just because I've taken the time to do some in the past – kinda coming back to haunt me). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
There's so much boosterism hereabouts that there's a risk that every draft (example) seems to the tired reviewer no more than part of an ad campaign. A recipe for reviewer cynicism indeed. (I'm glad I later did this, even though I'm still not happy with the result.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
And not some weedy bowler or beret. Instead, a real hat.Amazing conversion job done! A tip of the hat to ActivelyDisinterested for this series of edits, which at first glance seem to have taken 94 minutes, and which certainly result in a greatly improved look 'n' feel. But then I start to wonder how long it took for ActivelyDisinterested to work on the first of the series edits before clicking the "Publish changes" button. I fear that it would have taken me most of one day. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested! (And now I have to get down to improving the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello hoary I have a question about pictures, so I created a page on African hair threading, and I just wanted to ask a quick question. When it comes to the pictures of famous people that is widely used by social media, magazines, blogs do I need to get permission from the photographer who took the picture of the celebrity before uploading it and making a use of it on Misplaced Pages. Because am trying to make use of a Nigerian celebrity in a threaded hairstyle. Bernadine okoro (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you need that. Bernadine okoro, the photographs you're describing, if they can be uploaded at all, should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. So you're asking a Wikimedia Commons question and not a Misplaced Pages question. Regardless of either (i) how often the photograph is reproduced or (ii) how famous the person shown is, the copyright holder (usually but not always the photographer) must explicitly permit its reproduction in Wikimedia Commons, from which it can be used by Misplaced Pages, or anyone else (even for commercial purposes). If you can't determine whether/how an image is copyrighted, then you have to assume that it's conventionally copyrighted ("All rights reserved"), and therefore is unusable. Please see "Must be freely licensed or public domain". -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes am actually not done with the article unfortunately I don't have a lot of time so I often create pages like this and then come back to the page to add more things. Am assuming that by designating the article as an orphan that means it needs to be linked to other pages ie like this right ]? Bernadine okoro (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Bernadine okoro, if African hair threading was/is worth making, it's worth reading. But in order to read it, people hove to encounter it; and few people will encounter it because they guess that it might exist and therefore type "African hair threading" in the "Find" box. (After all, it could instead be titled "Hair threading" or something else.) Rather, they'll encounter it via links from elsewhere. A few such links already exist, but adding African hair threading to Template:Human hair seems a good idea to me. -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
"You restoring/ reverting an edit, whether it was by yourself or someone else = your edit, since you are the last editor to implement/ introduce, that edit.
Not only did you introduce/ re-introduce non factual information or fabrication (original research) into the encyclopedia, this also results in misleading readers as well as other editors having to clean up (fix) your instigated, disorder.
Please refer to the previous responses above, if you are still confused and/or need any more information regarding this section."
To give you context I edited a page and added a different genre of music which I felt best describes a song i later on reverted the editing as a result leaving the edit as I originally found it. But some other user is giving me a warning even after I explained to the user that it wasn't me who initially put in the original genre i told the user that my edit was a revert to how I found it but the user still insists that am wrong because i was the last person to edit the page. There is also another user who gave me a warning about another edit that I didn't make I found this puzzling because this other editor has been on Misplaced Pages for a long time and seems to be a pro on the platform and as such I was expecting this user to make use of the view history tab to figure out who made the initial edit but this user didn't do that. Am guessing since I was the last person to edit the page the user is giving me a warning. So my question is if I edited a page and later reverted the page to how I found it and it turns out the information I revereted back was wrong am I the right one to give a warning to? also if an edit I never made on a page is wrong since am the last person to edit the page should I be given a warning since am the last person to edit a page? Bernadine okoro (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Bernadine okoro, most of Misplaced Pages's articles are somewhere between "problematic" and "bad". Let's say that I'm keeping an eye on one that's "not satisfactory, but decent on balance", and that somebody suddenly makes a lot of edits to it that, taken together, in my opinion, damage it, and that I revert these edits. The reversion is indeed my edit, and I'm responsible for it. However, I'm not responsible for the veracity/quality of every part that I restore, and I'm not claiming that nothing that I deleted was an improvement. All I'm saying is that the version I'm restoring is, as a whole, superior to the one that I reverted.
An argument seems to have developed on your talk page. I haven't read it. I do notice that one user is raising their voice via boldface and underlining. This is about as bad as WRITING ALL IN CAPITALS, and it's a major reason why I didn't read. Another major reason is that I know nothing about the subject area. Anyway, as you continue to discuss this, avoid talking about who did what or who was/is responsible for what; instead, concentrate on what the article says, and how this is (or isn't) based on reliable sources. If you need more input, perhaps invite people at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Nigeria or Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Songs to go to the article's talk page. (Try to avoid phrasing your message in a way that might start up a parallel discussion. It's far better if a discussion goes on at just one place.) Hope this helps. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you declined Draft:William Keiser before me. Checking the history shows that most of the same sources were cited that are now. What are your thoughts on the analysis I did on the talk page? Would you still decline it or do you think it would have a decent chance in mainspace or an AfD? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I think my biggest concerns are WP:BLP1E and the fact that the coverage is so local. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The name was utterly unfamiliar, TipsyElephant, and when I clicked on the link what I then saw was utterly unfamiliar too. So I'm relieved to see that this was over a year ago. In the lead, WK was described as a "choreographer and podcast host". There was no further mention of choreography; and the podcasting appeared to be of a single, three-part podcast. The podcast "discusses" such and such; but to what effect, we weren't told. So I'm not at all surprised that I declined the submission. ¶ According to the lead of the current version, he's no longer a choreographer; but he's a "screenwriter, dance critic, essayist, and podcast host". There is no further mention of screenwriting or dance criticism, no further mention of essays (aside from "two op-eds in the LA Times"), and no mention of podcasting other than of the single, three-part podcast. ¶ I certainly wouldn't have accepted it as an article, but I can't be bothered to click on the references (let alone to search for other sources) and decide whether he's "undersold" by the article in its current state (which, for living people, is a rare occurrence in en:WP), and, if not, to launch an AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Akhinesh777, I declined your submission Draft:Redmi Note 13 for two reasons. One was that it had a total of one sentence. Now you want me to review the submission again. It now has a total of one sentence. Do you really believe that I will pass it? You also haven't dealt with the second reason. Where are your summaries of what reliable sources have said about this product? -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I provided an reliable source to Reference. From official Xiaomi Website and gsmarena about the smartphone. The source are reliable Akhinesh777 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Reliability requires independence. Xiaomi's website is obviously not an independent source. The second reason? That when I declined the submission and when I last looked, your draft had just one sentence. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Akhinesh777, you may, if you wish, remove comments from your own user talk page. You may not remove them from other talk pages. I am reverting your removal of comments from this user talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
How to resubmit?
I have provided reliable sources to Reference, i changed everything and found some reviews about this phone on website so i provided it to the Reference. I don't know how to resubmit this article Akhinesh777 (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello dear friend. I almost completely rewrote the article and indicated authoritative sources. The article showed the importance of the site and what it does for the citizens of Kazakhstan. Please check. I hope my article is valid. I will be extremely grateful if you publish my article in full!
The infobox tells us: "Years active 1999–2006". But it has fewer "past members" than it has "members". Then again, perhaps 2006–2024 have been "years passive". -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I loved this neologism you created for use in a reply in the Teahouse recently, and just had to tell you so! I'm sure you won't mind if I use it from time to time in conversation, even though there's no way to give you credit in that mode of communication. Augnablik (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't remember either sensing that I was creating it or remembering having encountered it somewhere: auto is a productive prefix, so it pretty much tripped off the fingers. But now that you credit/charge me with creating it, I look it up, and am not at all surprised to find that it's sufficiently known to appear in various dictionaries. (It seems to have been popularized via The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography, which I've never read, or wanted to.) ¶ The autohagiography in question was so bad it was funny, kind of. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
edit or add the masjedsoleyman municipality of masjedsoleyman?
hi there.
following your explanation in this topic you said i can add the municipality section of masjedsoleyman to the original page of city??? or its better to have other page for municipality??? AMIR 121 (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am awarding you with an admin's barnstar for your work more especially in helping new editors (referenced from your punctual responses to questions in Misplaced Pages:Teahouse). I personally want to commend your work and hope you will keep on the good work.
More misrepresentation of sources, falsehoods and original research
Hello Hoary, could you have another look at the talk page of Draft talk:Lewis Josselyn? The draft has been resubmitted again, and it is still filled with misrepresentation of sources, original research and other issues. I'm not entirely sure from a policy standpoint if the draft should be rejected or simply declined again. Each time I go to review it I find more problems. The creator has a long history of misrepresenting sources, as well as COI/UPE. Big time-sink. I think the matter needs admin eyes. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to create new wiki page for the Shri Lal Mahal organization. Its a Indian Rice Miller and Exporter from India. How do I create a new wiki page for this organization? Kindly help me. Rohitkumar775 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
ClaudineChionh, sorry, I've been away from my computer. I did think for some time that it might be trolling (there's quite a lot of this at the teahouse), but decided that a (severe) lack of competence was a lot more likely. This person's IP number varies, so even if blocking the latest IP seemed to be justified, it would be ineffectual, and therefore rather pointless. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey Hoary, I hope you are doing well! I just wanted to ask if you could review my article again. I made quite a few changes and took you advice. I explain exactly what I did in a reply to one of your comments. I hope this version works. All the best - Natascha :) Natascha.Stone (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I was wanting your help on making this page better. I am wanting someone else to review it but the same person is reviewing and rejecting my draft and leaving unnecessary messages on my talk page. I have seen many other shows on wikipedia that are just stubs but the draft is accepted. Can you tell me what further information I would need and if the links are reliable please? Thanks Plum3600 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Plum3600, you're asking me about a draft that's about a "2024 Pakistani drama serial", one that "premiered on 19 September 2024" -- which isn't even four weeks ago.
I know nothing about Pakistani TV, I can't read Urdu, and I don't watch any drama serial in any language, so I'm hardly a good choice for this. Still, I take a look to see if there's anything to comment on. Particularly, the degree of coverage of this serial in reliable sources that are independent of it. I found:
1. "Before it premiered, the show was already building buzz following the release of its promotional photos and teasers."
I'd be surprised if it wasn't. Of course TV production companies have vigorous PR campaigns; and interviews -- especially those of star(let)s -- are cheap fodder for magazines, TV chat shows, etc.
2. A video about it "was met with scrutiny from the public".
What does this mean beyond "got some views"?
3. "Fuchsia magazine described the show as highly relatable, praising its ability to connect with audiences through realistic characters and situations that reflect everyday life experiences."
Why the rush? Why not wait six months? I expect that by that time there'll be intelligent reviews of, and other commentary on, the serial and therefore a lot more meat for a good article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the politeness with which you've made this request of S0091, but I doubt that the request is going to have the result that you want. I agree with Mathglot's comment. I also think that S0091 seems to have gone a little too far. However, a major deletion shouldn't be reverted because it went a little too far. Instead, argue on Talk:HEC Paris for the reinstatement of a single, well referenced part of what had been deleted, after you've stripped this part of anything that isn't well referenced (or really doesn't seem important). Incidentally,though you're entitled to edit Misplaced Pages without logging in, I suggest that you get a username and edit as that user. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks to you. I have started to do it myself when and only when I find external references (secondary sources). I agree with what you say, S0091 seems to have gone a little too far. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi again. Job done. I did not know what to do with the COI on top, so I have left it. If you want to remove it, feel free. Please also do not hesitate to review S0091 and myself contributions. Many thanks for all your tips. Have a very nice day. --110.232.86.40 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you for pointing this out. I’ve reviewed the concern regarding the Gamezop article and corrected the logo attribution. It was mistakenly marked as "own work" and has now been properly attributed to Gamezop. Please let me know if further adjustments are needed. Morekiranwiki (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Morekiranwiki, the authorship is now specified as "Gamezop (uploaded by Morekiranwiki as an employee with permission)". This is commendably clear; thank you. But it raises another point. As an employee, you're paid to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution disclosure requires that you explicitly declare this in at least one of three ways. One way is in the summary for each relevant edit: this would be awkward and a waste of your time. Another way is in the talk page of each relevant article, draft, etc; and you already come close on Draft talk:Gamezop where you ask about "our company page". And the third (and I think best) way is on User:Morekiranwiki (where you already declare a COI). -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Hi Hoary. Thanks for protecting the Teahouse. Given how many IP editors use the Teahouse to ask questions, it might be better to use a much shorter duration even though this specific LTA is so disruptive. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Daniel Quinlan, the Teahouse attracts mere attention-seekers -- plural. But an encyclopedia needs mentally mature editors. (Only indirectly related to age: Of course there are mature twelve-year-olds and immature -- or plain senile -- eighty-year-olds.) The mature can wait a few minutes, or even half an hour, before seeing that their question/plea is visible to all. Those demanding instant attention would be better off frequenting some other website. So I have no qualms about the one-week setting, though another administrator might disagree. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, I disagree. As the log shows, we have typically set shorter protection durations for key help pages and noticeboards—usually several hours—when handling this LTA. Longer protections do more to hinder those seeking help without significantly deterring this behavior, as he typically shifts to other pages. That said, I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Daniel Quinlan, I've brought it down to one day. Anyone wanting to reduce it further is free to do so: no need to ask me. (Incidentally, I'm unaccustomed to this LTA; which other pages does he like to blather in?) -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Whpq § User Tnrajab's uploads. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
