User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions for the period July to September 2021.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Abdullah Sulaiman Al Rajhi

How can a page of an influential figure in the field of money exchange in the Arab world be unwanted on Wikipedia on the pretext that it is not neutral Although it does not contain any glorification of the person, only the tasks and functions that are included in it throughout his career with some activities on the human and social level? I do not know where the error is. Will you allow me some time and tell me where the error lies? Is there a paragraph or a title that is not natural? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Sulaiman_Al_Rajhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedX8 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RedX8. Because I'm not an administrator, I cannot view what was in the drafts that were rejected by the Articles for Creation (AfC) reviewers (as I think you blanked them and they were subsequently deleted). However, I assume that they're around the same material as what's at the link you gave. The problem with Wikipedia is that the guideline that determines whether people should have articles, notability, doesn't really care about how "influential" someone is; it cares about whether they've been significantly covered by independent sources. There are exceptions for professors and creative people like journalists and artists, but your banker isn't covered by those criteria.

Looking through the sources in the page, I assume the reason the article has been declined so far is that the subject hasn't had much significant coverage. Quite a lot of the information in the sources are what you might find in a CV or résumé. I understand it's frustrating (especially since there is a page for him at Arabic Wikipedia), but it may be the case that the notability guideline isn't as strong there. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding a version of this page.

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for calling out my rewrite of White House Historical Association as a positive example of COI editing in the current VPP discussion! I was really proud of that one. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mary, it's been a while; I hope you're doing well. It was a pleasure: your version was well-written and a strong improvement on the original, which didn't even have sections and was barely referenced. It's a great shame that there is a chronic shortage of editors willing to deal with the edit requests backlog: paid/COI editors are not bogey(wo)men and much of the work they do improve the encyclopedia. I'm not sure I blame organisations that get frustrated with the process and turn to the dark side instead. It's a shame that some of your former clients have done so, however. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're well too! I agree with everything you said. I know there's only so much I can do to help on Wikipedia as a declared paid editor, but I've been working to spread the word about Wikipedia best practices in the PR world. I so appreciate the efforts of you and the other volunteers who review edit requests. I know it can be tiresome work, but I really believe it makes Wikipedia better. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mary. By spreading news about the "proper" way to do things, I suspect that you're doing a great deal to stop these unsavoury practices and this is where a paid editor has more influence than a volunteer. Thank you for your kind words and encouragement and work.

Sdrqaz (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this !vote at WP:VPPOL.

Titular Duchesses of Calabria and Charles of Bourbon Two Sicilies

Hi, forgive me for the high number of edits but I have repeatedly specified in the subject field my reasons inviting the user User 84.65.250.137 to write to me, despite everything he continued to delete my changes to which I added notes and I was offended by this. Then I wrote to the user but he did not respond. I have therefore not had the opportunity to talk to him so since he is an anonymous user and every day changes IP. I wrote to him that collaboration is important. And I urged him to cooperate, but I received no response. The dispute between the Two Sicilies is complex and every time I restored my version I wrote in the Subject Field my reasons, adding links in which the dispute is clarified. The duchess of Calabria page will no longer modify it because it will always be deleted, even if I cite the sources and insert the right information. It is well known that Charles, Duke of Castro, claims the title of Duchess of Calabria for his daughter Carolina. And so it is wrong to write that Camilla Crociani is the Duchess of Calabria as Charles did not claim the title for himself but for his daughter. In 2017 she claimed the title of Duchess of Noto for her second daughter Chiara. The courts of are expressed in 1986, 2011 and 2012, confirming the title of Duke of Calabria to Don Pietro, Duke of Calabria (who already owned that title) and his son Don Giacomo, Duke of Noto (He already owned that title). In addition, these sentences established that the claims on the Duchy of Calabria and Castro, by the Dukes of Castro, are null and void as the result of SELF-PRODUCED documentation. A ruling held in Spain established that Don Carlo Maria (don Pietro's father) was the head of the House of the Two Sicilies and the Duke of Calabria, and when he died the title passed to his son Don Pietro. This was the only investigation carried out regarding the dynastic dispute. So assigning the titles of Duchess of Calabria to the Dukes of Castro is wrong, because there was a ruling that as I said established the truth. Today the Duchesses of Calabria are Alice of Bourbon-Parma (died 20117), Anne d'Orléans, and currently Peter's wife, Sofia. In the future the Duchess of Calabria will be the future wife of her son Giacomo, Lady Charlotte, when her husband takes the title. In addition, each state recognizes the titles of Duke of Calabria and Duke of Noto to the Italo-Spanish line, namely Pietro and his son Giacomo. Even the Italian Republic. I hope I have clarified this. Thank you for listening.

~MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (write) 09:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC).

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma: Thank you for your thorough explanation and for stopping this revert cycle. To be honest, I am not familiar with this area of the encyclopaedia: all I could see was that the both of you were reverting each other back-and-forth. Thank you also for opening a dialogue at the talk page; trying to communicate through edit summaries is quite difficult and isn't a very good substitute for a talk-page discussion. Given that you have posted a message there and have had no response, you could reinstate your edits with the summary "see talk page" or similar, and if this dispute continues, you could request semi-protection at requests for page protection because the IP editor is removing sourced content, or start a request for comment so other editors can give their input. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Duchess of Calabria and these edits at Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro.

working with US Census data

“The statistic you introduced was unsourced and at odds with the existing Washington Post source. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)”

Many news articles cited by Wikipedia include attempts to cite US Census Bureau data without understanding US Census Bureau definitions or methodology. This results in confusion for readers and makes correlating census data over time or census data from different Wikipedia articles difficult as most get Wikipedia articles get it right but the ones I corrected got it wrong.

The corrections I made were to align the demographics section of Wikipedia articles with the US Census Bureaus distinctions between race and ethnicity as exemplified by how they collect and report data, namely that a people can report both race and ethnicity so they are not exclusive. As a result reporting this information is easiest when broken into two separate sentences or sections: one on race and one on ethnicity. When newspaper articles cited by Wikipedia mix the two (perhaps out of laziness or confusion, that makes wiki articles a mess). Information on the US Census Bureaus approach to asking about race and separately ethnicity can be found here: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/newsletters/volume3/volume3_issue6.pdf

I love maps, statistics and demographics and welcome the opportunity to get better at contributing so please continue to coach and advise.

What would you like me to do next?

Craig Nehrkorn (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Craig, thank you for your explanation. I had come across your edit at Houston because the page was under pending changes protection and I reverted it because of a couple of reasons: the reasons you've quoted above from my warning, and because I thought it may have been subtle vandalism. Your edit summary was "Fixed grammar: fixed capitalization inconsistencies across nouns." while altering the percentage of illegal immigrants in Houston's metropolitan area (which wasn't mentioned in the summary). After reading the Washington Post article, it seemed to support that "nearly 9%" statistic while I couldn't find information there to back up your "nearly 25%" statistic.

As for what you can do next, you can replace that source (since you believe it misrepresents the statistic "out of laziness or confusion"; I wouldn't really know because I'm not a subject-matter expert, but can imagine the "popular press" being sloppy any day) with the one you used to come to your 25% conclusion. Perhaps a line about how the Census Bureau distinguishes between ethnicity and race would be a good idea too, with a link to their explanation.

Finally, I would like to apologise to you for accusing you of vandalism. I had gone through your contributions and found that you had added many statistics where the total percentage was over 100%, and so the alarm bells in my head went off: I've combatted vandals that have added or subtracted one year from multiple people's dates of birth and so I thought that this was a similar situation, where the figures were being made-up. I assume that people can identify as being simultaneously Hispanic and white and so the percentages will be above 100%? I hope you understand and forgive me, and I will be more careful and more ready to assume good faith. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You are correct and I will make the source changes when I am free to do more editing soon. The more than 100% explanation you asked about is correct. The 9% vs 25% you asked about came from the fact that the source said the illegal population is X and the total population is Y and the X divided by the Y equaled 25% on my calculator, not 9% but I will look for another source for you. Thanks again! Craig Nehrkorn (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Craig, thanks for the positivity – I know that if I were in the same position as you, having been (wrongly) accused of vandalism, I would not be so cheerful. A word of warning: your calculations may face a bit of pushback due to possible original research. While there are exceptions under that policy for routine calculations, that line is a little murky and there may be concerns from other editors. Hopefully you won't face those problems if you cite your source clearly, but I thought it would be fair to give you a bit of a heads-up. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was initially regarding this edit at Houston.

Ashfaque Nabi

hello sdrqaz, kindly explain in details about errors , hope to get your kind help in this thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

hello sdrqaz kindly share errors in details regarding page - Ashfaque Nabi. hope to get your kind help in restoring it. thanks, looking forward to learn from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ashfaque, the page is currently at Draft:Ashfaque Nabi and you can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to it. However, the draft is written in a very promotional tone: phrases like "they fought with full zeal & enthusiasm", "He worked again tirelessly & passionately", and "This was the start of his most astounding political journey" sound more like they belong in a press release than in a Wikipedia article. Subjects of articles need to be notable: that usually means having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You need to make sure that you fulfil those requirements. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of Ashfaque Nabi to Draft:Ashfaque Nabi. Part of the message was titled "regarding deletion of page Ashfaque Nabi"; this heading was removed and merged into the previous message.

Need Help!

Hello Sdrqaz, I am new to writing on Wikipedia and my editings got rejected don't know why. Can you help with information about how should I write in future.

Thank you Prem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rprem7684 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Prem. I reverted your edits at Indian Institute of Information Technology, Bhagalpur for a few reasons: your information about the new campus's construction beginning in August was unsourced; the faculty and alumni you added weren't notable; your information about the start-ups didn't seem notable either. I'll explain a little further: please feel free to add back the news about the new campus with a source (you can use <ref>...</ref>, with the URL of the news source in the "..."). As for the faculty, it seemed a little too detailed: we don't usually add a full staff list to Wikipedia articles, with so much information. It's generally fine when the staff member has been in the news or is notable in some way (maybe they invented something or is known to be an expert in their field), but when they haven't, it's a little too much detail. The LinkedIn links aren't usually added too: the alumni list is also usually for people that are notable, such as perhaps when they get their own Wikipedia articles or become well-known (maybe a graduate became a member of the Parliament of India, maybe they became the CEO of a big company etc). As for the start-ups, we're (again) looking for things that became notable: maybe a newspaper reported on one of these projects, maybe it received funding from the government, that sort of thing. I hope this helps, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Indian Institute of Information Technology, Bhagalpur.

Recent uncontroversial move of Graphania averilla

Hi @Sdrqaz,

Thanks for the help with the above redirect as well as the information that I could have done this move myself. I've been reluctant to do this when there already exists a redirect from the current correct species name (in this case Ichneutica averilla) to the synonymised species name (again, in this case Graphania averilla). I'm confident enough to undertaken a simple "move" where no redirect already exists but am unsure how to go about it when a redirect already exists. I have reached out to other editors who suggested I use the uncontroversial technical move process in this situation. But if you have any guidance you can give on how I can go about this correctly myself I'd be very grateful. I'm attempting to update multiple English Wikipedia species articles and despite being reluctant to bother administrators with this issue, I also don't want to continue to let my lack of knowledge about redirects put me off from keeping Wikipedia current (as has previously been the case). Any help would be gratefully received. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ambrosia. Moves over a redirect (thus "overwriting" it) can be done by autoconfirmed editors when two criteria are met: the redirect is pointing at the title right now, and has only one entry in its page history. So for example, if you're trying to move A to B and there is a redirect already at B, you can perform it (as an autoconfirmed editor) if the content at B is #REDIRECT [[A]] and the only entry in the page history is that. However, if a criterion isn't met (maybe there is some old history at the target, like if someone had altered the redirect or someone had added some categories to it; maybe the target is pointing elsewhere), you cannot (as a non-page mover) perform it. That's when I'd advise listing it at technical requests.

If you think the move will be controversial, I'd advise starting a requested move about it so other editors can chip in, but I don't think any of the moves you're planning will be. An easier way of performing all these moves without checking the page histories and whether the target is a redirect to the page right now would be to try it out like you would normally; if you cannot perform the move, the software will tell you and you can write the ones you cannot perform down and make a request at technical requests like you did previously. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz, thanks for that extremely helpful reply! I will definitely do this from now on but will run to technical requests if need. I very much appreciate all your help. Ambrosia10 (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this request at WP:RMTR.

Sage Board

Hi @Sdrqaz,

Sorry, I didn't understand this process well enough, I guess. My take is that pages like this don't get created unless you do it yourself or your company hits some sort of critical mass to warrant a 3rd party objective or more likely, non-objective source to create it. Maybe Wikipedia just doesn't want that type of content on here? WOuld love some insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyeargin (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pyeargin: Thank you for not moving it back. Your take is right, in a way: "pages like this don't get created unless you do it yourself or your company hits some sort of critical mass". However, you cannot force an article's subject to be notable: you need to wait for that "critical mass". Wikipedia's criteria for companies is when it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. That's quite a high bar. Plenty of innovative companies and organisations do great work, but don't get recognised by independent sources and so don't get an article here. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

Most Wikipedia editors would tell you that your third sentence is correct: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. The advantages of putting it through the Articles for Creation process is that it saves you pain further down the line: AfC reviewers have quite a good nose on notability and are well-equipped to determine whether an article will be deleted later on. If a subject is not notable, it will eventually be spotted and deleted. If you truly feel that the company meets the criteria above, add {{subst:submit}} to Draft:Sage Board. I hope my advice helps. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of Sage Board to Draft:Sage Board. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for discovering this, I am genuinely amazed that you pinged me half an hour after the creation of the page... How did you even find it... Anyways, you have a really unique user page, and you make an absolute ton of pending changes reviews. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia :D

Justi yaya 23:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kitten, Justiyaya! I stumbled across the page they created (Ayan Nayak) when looking at new pages by new users and got confused when they claimed to have so many user rights despite having made a handful of edits. Somehow, I didn't see that they claimed to be you in the first sentence of their userpage and had to go to your adoptee before making the link to you ... Unfortunately, it seems like that is what some sockpuppeteers do, and they got blocked. My userpage has changed quite a bit: I didn't have one for years, and when I finally created one it was pretty minimalist. As for pending changes, looks like you're not too shabby either! Thank you for your work too, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Umm I know I probably don't have to ask for permission, but can I be your (talk page stalker)? Justi yaya 21:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Err sure! A word of warning: I'm not a terribly interesting Wikipedian to stalk, so you might get bored after a while ... Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this question at SILVAJASON's talk page. Pertinent information can be found at Sockpuppet investigations/AnonymousIndiaz.

Reference :Harry Davis(1930's First Baseman) - Reversion that was unnecessary and harmful

June 2021

I QUOTE FROM YOU: Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Harry Davis (1930s first baseman). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am Harry A. Davis IV, the grandson of Harry Davis. The information I changed WAS NOT incorrect. I KNOW who my grandmother is. Why did you revert my edit?

It appears you used a newspaper article that is full of inconsistencies with regard to my Grandfather's history. For example, it states he played until 1954... Here is a link to his baseball career and you can see that the article is incorrect. I don't know who initiated this Wiki page, but they did not research my grandfather very well. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=davis-005har

If you need proof of marriage, I can email you a copy of the Marriage Certificate. I do not wish to play with the convoluted UPLOAD process of Wiki. It is hard enough just getting a message to you.

Please change my edit back.

Thank you,

HAD 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubincontechnologies (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Harry, the problem with Wikipedia is that one of its central tenets is verifiability: readers of Wikipedia must be able to check the information in its articles. The marriage certificate that you have is a primary source, which are rarely used in Wikipedia and may not be considered a reliable source (we've had problems before of people forging such documents and uploading them and claiming falsehoods). As I don't really work in the area, I'm not really familiar with the reliability of Baseball Reference and what that says about the Times's reliability, but I will open a section at the talk page and ask others from the Baseball WikiProject to weigh in. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response? What is the solution to correct this error? Do I need to re-edit the article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubincontechnologies (talk • contribs) 01:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest watching the discussion at Talk:Harry Davis (1930s first baseman) unfold and seeing what others say. There seems to be some disagreement on whether the Times source really was inconsistent with Baseball Reference and whether the Times's obituary is a reliable source. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding my reversion of this edit at Harry Davis (1930s first baseman). Pertinent information can be found at the talk page.

please do not harass me, and please restore the page that you inappropriately deleted

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! hotaru2k3 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hotaru2k3, I strongly agree that we need to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. However, it is, perhaps, slightly difficult to do so when someone creates a redirect that calls a person a "homophobe". That behaviour is completely out of order, and a flagrant violation of policy. I did not "harass" you. I notified you in accordance to policy. As I am not an administrator, I cannot restore any pages, nor can I delete any. The deleting administrator was Liz, and I highly doubt that she (or any of our other 1,087 administrators) would be willing to restore that page. If you can find one that would be, please let me know. Good day, Sdrqaz (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

the redirect was not calling a person a homophobe. it was just redirecting what a lot of people are calling that particular space telescope to the more obscure name that Wikipedia calls it. and even if you do believe that the redirect is inappropriate, it was deleted without going through the normal process for deletion, with no opportunity for anyone to object to the deletion. additionally, your condescending wall of text on my user talk page is not appreciated. hotaru2k3 (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to agree with you that "the redirect was not calling a person a homophobe" when it replaced the name of a person with "homophobe". The "more obscure name that Wikipedia calls it"? Are you referring to the telescope's official name, as chosen by NASA? Also, I've Googled the name of that redirect in quotation marks and have received zero results. Are you sure it's "what a lot of people are calling that"?

The speedy deletion policy allows for the expedited deletion of pages that fit its criteria (in this case G10 and R3); I nominated it as such, and the deleting administrator agreed with me. She did not have to wait for your objection, though if it was deleted any more slowly you could have. The speed at which it was deleted speaks volumes of how inappropriate that redirect was and I couldn't restore it for you even if I wanted to. You need to contact the deleting administrator (I said who it was above) and if she doesn't agree you can go to deletion review and request it there. The "wall of text" on your talk page is due to the use of the {{first article}} and {{db-notice-multiple}} templates to notify you of its impending deletion (standard practice), and it wasn't harassment or vandalism (which is what you called it here, here, and here). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Sdrqaz here. A casual glance at the situation also indicates it to have been a case of righting great wrongs, and this is not the place to enact some sort of retribution for perceived wrongs and evils, to say nothing of the actual ones in question - nor would doing so here be actually effective to that end in any manner. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the creation of this redirect.

2021 Durand Cup

Hi. I didn't want to nominate the article for deletion, but it was recently draftified, due to lack of source. So, please merge them. 2021 Durand Cup and Draft:2021 Durand Cup. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ArnabSaha, the {{db-reason}} template is used for requesting speedy deletion. While they're both pages on the same topic, they were started by two different editors. I'm not sure how you want me to merge it – if you want to merge the text, you can do that yourself by adding the information that is missing at 2021 Durand Cup from Draft:2021 Durand Cup. If you want to merge the history, I don't think it's applicable because that's for copy-and-paste moves. You could redirect one to the other, but I wouldn't advise it. If you redirect the draft to the article, you still have the "problem" of it being in the mainspace (I assume that's not acceptable for you). If you redirect the article to the draft, that's generally not acceptable because such cross-namespace redirects are usually speedily deleted and you would be in effect deleting that article if the reviewing administrator wasn't careful enough. Please PROD it or take it to AfD or better still, discuss with the two editors with whom you have a disagreement. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any disagreement with any of the users. When the article was created first time, it was based on rumours. I couldn't find any citation too. So, I moved it to draft. Later, another user created the article, based on those similar rumours and reports. Even, as of now, there are no proper report claiming that the tournament will be played this year, and I feel, until we have proper sources, the article should be in draft condition. That's why, I requested for CSD or whatever is appropriate. Since, you (or anyone who goes through the CSD nominations) are much more experienced, I asked if it could be merged, or any other action could be taken. Before CSD, I went to merge them, but due to lack of source, I backed off. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 17:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@ArnabSaha: From what I understand, you intend to delete the article. There are three deletion methods on Wikipedia:

Speedy deletion (CSD)
1. Very strict guidelines
2. Probably doesn't apply in this context
Proposed deletion (PROD)
1. Uncontested only
2. For basically every context
Articles for Deletion (AfD)
1. Community !Vote
2. Consensis

You CSDed the article that you linked, none of the CSD guidelines applied in that situation, hence the removal of the CSD, a proposed deletion would be better in this situation. Making a PROD would be quite straightforward with twinkle, but if you do not wish to use twinkle, add {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} to the top of the page. Note that a PROD can be removed by anyone, if it is removed, AFD it by following the instructions on WP:AFDHOWTO, or discuss with the editor that removed the tag. That being said, I didn't look through the citations on the page carefully, so I cannot support the deletion.

Lastly, the deletion methods on Wikipedia are quite confusing, hopefully this helped :D (talk page stalker) Justi yaya 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Justiyaya gives a good overview on the possible avenues for deletion (thanks!). Hmm. I suppose you could move the article to Draft:2021 Durand Cup (2) or something similar, although draftification when editors don't have a conflict of interest is supposed to be when nobody is actively working on it and improving it. I'd advise prodding it and seeing if there are any objections. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I will merge both the article, as I found some sources. Thanks for the help. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 08:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. Good luck! Sdrqaz (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this speedy deletion nomination of 2021 Durand Cup.

Obhyesh

Hey Sdrqaz, Thanks for dealing with my article, 'Obhyesh' is an upcoming Bengali film. I wrote about that but there was no undisclosed payment deal with anyone. Please tell me what should I do to get my article back in livespace again. Please guide me. Thank you. Bsrthereal (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Bsrthereal. Do you have a conflict of interest with this movie? Your username suggests you may be the director or someone associated with them. If you do, please click the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the draft. If you don't have a conflict of interest, you could move the page back into the mainspace, but I wouldn't advise it: although the movie looks good, it may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Do you have any other independent sources that are covering this movie? Right now in the draft, I only see the movie's official website and IMDb, which isn't considered a reliable source because its content is mainly added by users (like Wikipedia). As a reviewer told you, unreleased movies need to meet the guidelines set out here. If it doesn't have any other coverage from independent, reliable sources, we can't accept it, sorry. That may happen when the movie is released or a few years later, but from what I can see in the draft now, it doesn't currently meet the criteria. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, Thank you so much Sdrqaz for the help. Can you please reply to me with the chart containing all the sources like IMDb and others stating reliable or not on Wikipedia? Thanks again Bsrthereal (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. The ones the community have had discussions about are in this table, but it doesn't cover everything. If your source doesn't show up there, you can ask at either the Teahouse or the reliable sources noticeboard, though I would recommend the Teahouse as the first place to ask (people there tend to be a bit more friendly). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, It surely helps, Thanks a lot. Bsrthereal (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for keep helping a new contributor. It helps. Bsrthereal (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, Bsrthereal! Thank you for the barnstar. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Most welcome Sdrqaz. Bsrthereal (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added. Part of the message was titled "A barnstar for you!"; this heading was removed and merged into the previous message.

Thank you, Sdrqaz!

Thanks for responding to the deletion request on the GXO Logistics page. Much appreciated. Gannymetis (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Gannymetis. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the G11 speedy deletion nomination of GXO Logistics.

Nishant S Mehta

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your contribution to Nishant S Mehta Article, I would love to hear from your side the correction and Suggestions on the same. help us to Improve Kimran999 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kimran999. I'm not sure what contribution I made to Nishant S Mehta, given I nominated it for deletion. As for my issues with the article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishant S Mehta gives quite a good overview, but in essence it is that the subject doesn't have significant coverage in independent sources. If we look through the sources currently present in the article, we have a list of speakers at an event, a national record for India (which may be independent but doesn't really go into much detail about the subject), and a promotional press release. Searches elsewhere don't uncover anything beyond profiles from the company itself and LinkedIn, which aren't independent either. Of course, if you feel that the subject is notable, please join the debate at AfD. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hie, @Sdrqaz. you Nominated Nishant S Mehta for deletion, I agree with you.

I'm collecting the significant coverage with independent sources, Once links will cover I will update immediately.

Mean while can you please remove AfD message.

Thanks

Kimran999 Kimran999 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Kimran999, I'm afraid I cannot remove the AfD message from the article, though you are free to remove the notice from your talk page. Because someone else has !voted for deletion, I couldn't close the nomination as "speedy keep" even if I wanted to. While I could withdraw my nomination, the debate would continue and the notice could not be removed from the page. Your best course of action is to find the independent sources within the next six days (AfDs go on for seven) and argue for keeping the page at the debate. Those independent sources do not need to be in the article, but as long as you've found them, you can point to them there. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hie,

I added few independent source, I request you to please review.

Thanks Kimran999 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kimran999: Looking through the sources you added since I nominated the page for deletion, I'm still not convinced. The Nation Wide Awards source is full of promotional phrasing, such as "globally recognized identity famous for his dedication and manifold abilities", "set a new milestone of his success", "Beyond a doubt, all these extraordinary and multitude of qualities really makes Nishant a person of eminence." These quotes (and there are more) make me suspect that the source is more built on promoting its recipients than being a serious awards organisation. Its website does not fill me with confidence either, since it talks about "Individually Tailored Advertising and Promotion Campaigns ... Press Release Activities etc" being part of winning an award from them. As for the "Indian Achiever's Award" source, I cannot access it so cannot comment on it, but to meet the general notability guideline, multiple sources are expected.

I would also like to note my dissatisfaction that you removed the AfD tag from the page, saying that the nomination had been withdrawn and the discussion was closed as speedy keep. That was untrue. This was despite the fact I specifically told you that it could not be removed before the debate was over, given the circumstances. I also do not understand why you moved the page to userspace, though to your credit you moved it back, after several attempts (1, 2). Sdrqaz (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the nomination of Nishant S Mehta for deletion. The initial message was titled "A barnstar for you!"; this heading was renamed to "Nishant S Mehta".

Amcham Libya

Thanks for your message, but being new to this and just trying to help my wife set up a wiki page for her business here in Libya I don't understand why you have somehow been able to or wanted to change my wiki page to draft? Everything on the page is accurate and up to date, and if I can get it to stay up for a bit I'll add to it and improve... Can you specifically advise what I need to do to keep this page live?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcham Libya (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Going off "help my wife set up a wiki page for her business", it sounds like you have a conflict of interest regarding that organisation. As I told you on your talk page, Wikipedia has guidelines for such editors: you should submit pages you write regarding that subject through the Articles for Creation process to allow an impartial reviewer to assess it. That's why I moved the page to the draftspace. I would normally tell you that you can continue working on the page while it is in draftspace, but it appears to have been deleted for being purely promotional and a copyright infringement. Moreover, the page you were editing seems to be a duplicate of American Chamber of Commerce in Libya, which you know because you have edited that page before. Is there a reason why you decided to create another article on the same subject? Sdrqaz (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of American Chamber of Commerce Libya to Draft:American Chamber of Commerce Libya.

Question about personal attacks

Care to explain how that is a personal attack?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaSiRu11 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

YaSiRu11 You called someone a racist. Please go strike that now and never do that again. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What Valereee said. Assuming good faith, I hope you meant that about Wikipedia as a whole rather than that editor, but the use of "you" made me think you meant that editor. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the article according to the guidelines but DMySon said that "It lacks reliable references that they do not show significant coverage". My sources clearly talked about the person in clear detail. This^[1] is from the Sri Lankan newspaper Daily Mirror. And this^[2] is from the ILO. Can someone explain to me how they are 'insignificant' and not 'reliable' ?. DMySon clearly had some prejudices against the article and its content to act in that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaSiRu11 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@YaSiRu11: That International Labour Organisation source was written by the subject himself, Ridma Weerawardena. While getting an article published by the ILO is impressive, that source by itself isn't enough to establish notability: the subject is effectively writing about himself and therefore the source isn't independent. As for the Daily Mirror source, it sounds a little promotional to me, but it may be acceptable for establishing notability. To meet the general notability guideline, multiple sources are usually needed (that also meet the criteria set out there – being independent, reliable and having significant coverage). I think perhaps you're taking "significant coverage" to mean that the source isn't important. That isn't what the guideline means: it means that the source needs to cover the subject in good detail. Saying that an editor "clearly had some prejudices against the article and its content" is not helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

YaSiRu11, thank you for striking the 'racist' comment, but as Sdrqaz points out, the DMySon clearly had some prejudices against the article and its content to act in that way. also is a personal attack because it's making assumptions about another editor's motivations. Talk about edits, not about editors. If I were you I'd strike that comment, too.

I know it's disappointing to have an article declined. The English Wikipedia does recognize that there is systemic bias present in our coverage of subjects from non-English speaking countries, but it does not follow that a particular editor is exhibiting bias. The subject's notability needs to be shown in order for WP to publish an article about him. It's that simple. No one is discriminating against a Sri Lankan. They're questioning whether that Sri Lankan has been shown to be notable. —valereee (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding my warning at User talk:YaSiRu11, which was caused by this message about Draft:Ridma Weerawardena. The initial message was titled "[[1]]"; this heading was renamed to "Question about personal attacks".

References

Page mover granted

Hello, Sdrqaz. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Cabayi (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Cabayi. Should I go to you when the trial is over, or should I re-request at PERM? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer you re-request at PERM. Happy moving. Cabayi (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for dealing with that backlog! Sdrqaz (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Difference

You have leave a edit summary for this reversion ([2]): "Reversion of multiple changes that either expanded the criteria or made them narrower or added redundant information: discretion ≠ decision, no administrator in their right mind would use revdel for test edits, and redactions of appealed blocks have always been out of the question"

Can you please clarify for me what is difference between "<someone>'s discretion" and "decision of <someone>". I'd be happy if you provide it for me. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 04:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If we believe Wiktionary, discretion refers to the ability/freedom to make decisions, while decision is the judgement/choice itself. It's not a big difference, but I am not a fan of replacing exact language with inexact language. "Decision" is easily understandable and (in my opinion) doesn't need changing. For me, when dealing with the policy pages, because it is built on the consensus of the community, I need a very good reason to alter it: with linguistic differences and subtle changes, sometimes the meaning can be altered quite a bit (for example "must" and "should" have the same sort of meaning, but one is stronger and our best wikilawyers would tell you there is a substantial difference between the two). Sdrqaz (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

copy right violation

This is not copyright violation but some information in wikipedia has similarity in linkedin as per author's input in linkedin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdsac (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stdsac: I assume you're referring to Shafkat chowdhury, which I tagged for speedy deletion as a recreated page previously deleted after a deletion discussion. I have not said it was a copyright violation, so I don't know where that idea has come from – I assume you have somehow confused me with an editor from 2010, which is long before I began editing Wikipedia. In many ways, that is the problem: you have been persistently creating pages on this person, with two AfDs on the subject (2012 and 2014), and two salts (2014 and 2021). Of course, you're aware of all this history: you blanked and moved both AfDs in 2016 (1, 2, 3, 4), and just recreated the page with improper capitalisation to get around the creation protection. Please stop. Your friend (or perhaps the subject is you) has done admirable work for NASA, but Wikipedia has spoken twice on the subject and is not interested in having his page here. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Peerage titles and honorifics: MOS amendments

I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

AIx Solutions Group, Inc.

That article is, according to its creator, sourced to a Youtube video with 36 views. it appears to be entirely invented... Would you mind deleting it? I have marked it as a hoax. --- Possibly ☎ 00:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm flattered, Possibly (or should I be offended?), but I'm not an administrator so cannot delete pages. I suspect in this case, A11 may be more appropriate than G3 but I'll leave it for someone else to review. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops sorry! You declined with so much authority. It's deleted now. --- Possibly ☎ 01:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the G11 speedy deletion nomination of AIx Solutions Group, Inc., which was subsequently deleted under A7 after being nominated under G3.

Ashfaque Nabi

I request your kind attention, kindly help in publishing page - "Ashfaque Nabi" I'll be really grateful for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaquenabi (talk • contribs) 13:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ashfaque, as I told you a month ago, Draft:Ashfaque Nabi is way too promotional and more like something you'd have on a personal website or a LinkedIn profile or resumé. Phrases like "fought with full zeal & enthusiasm", "worked again tirelessly & passionately", and "the start of his most astounding political journey" don't belong on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, for people to have pages on Wikipedia, they either need to meet the guideline for biographies or general notability guideline (GNG). A more thorough explanation of what that means are in those links (there are quite a few different ones in the biographies guideline for different types of people), but the sources in the page right now do not meet the GNG. The first source does not seem to mention Nabi, while the second and third sources just mention his Tweets. While that is impressive, the sources need to give greater detail than that. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sabarna Sangrahashala

Please restore a version that is not G11-able. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: To be honest, I'm not convinced that the current revision by itself is G11-able either. The § References section is annoying, as is the lack of <ref></ref> tag use, but I'm not really seeing how the page is "exclusively promotional". Sdrqaz (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the speedy deletion nomination of Sabarna Sangrahashala.

Mistakes Correction Of Kawsar Khan

Hi good Morning. I would like to talk about Kawsar Khan Profile on wikipedia. would you like to help me to find out the mistakes? should I send the Source code to you from this box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawsarkhan24 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kawsar. Sending me the source code won't be necessary. Firstly, if you have a conflict of interest, you are expected to declare it, preferably on your userpage. So in your example, you should add {{UserboxCOI|1=Kawsar Khan}}. Secondly, because it was deleted for being promotional, you need to be careful with the tone of the page. Having a long list of articles written by the subject makes the page seem like it's promoting their work. Is the information more suited to a personal website than Wikipedia? Quite often, when editors have conflicts of interest with subjects, they find that they cannot write neutrally about them. That's why editing with a conflict of interest isn't recommended on Wikipedia. A good guide to writing your first article can be found here.

Going off what you wrote at JBW's talk page, the subject seems to be a journalist. Pages on Wikipedia need to be notable – this means (in this case) meeting one of several guidelines: the basic guideline, guideline for any biography, or guideline for creative professionals. There's more information about those guidelines in the links, but generally, people need to have had independent, reliable sources cover them in good detail. It's quite hard to meet that standard. Looking over the sources in your message for JBW, a lot of them were articles or books or movies the subject had written, and not articles about the subject. When you think you've found enough independent reliable sources that cover the subject, put them in Draft:Kawsar Khan and add {{subst:submit}} to it, so one of our reviewers can read through what you've written. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of Kawsar Khan to Draft:Kawsar Khan.

Nomination of Nabis (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nabis (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabis (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Notice was following the declination of the G11 speedy deletion nomination of Nabis (company).

Thanks!

Hi Sdrqaz. I really appreciate the assistance with the DYK nomination!

I was wondering if I could ask your opinion on two other articles I submitted to WP:AFC last year: Draft:International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi) and Draft:National Wrestling Conference.

They've both been declined under WP:ESSAY.

I scaled back a lot of the quotes/text but I'm a little confused as to how the WP:ESSAY policy applies here. I haven't inserted original ideas / opinions, and it's written in an encyclopedic, neutral tone.

Thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Also here's some possible DYK hooks if these end up being accepted. Hook #4 (ICW) and #1-3 (NCW) might be more topical since Smith and Warrior were both recently profiled by the Dark Side of the Ring documentary series, as well as Hook #4 (NCW) as GLOW was among a number of series shut down due to Covid.

For International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi)

... that International Championship Wrestling was the first wrestling territory for Michael Hayes, Terry Gordy, Kamala and Percy Pringle?
... that International Championship Wrestling was the birthplace of The Fabulous Freebirds?
... that the Culkin family waged a two-year promotional war against NWA Tri-State over the National Wrestling Alliance's Mid-South territory?
1. ... and filed an anti-trust lawsuit as part of their campaign against the NWA?
... that in his role as International Championship Wrestling's booker, Grizzly Smith was allegedly paid by Bill Watts to purposely sabotage their shows?
... that International Championship Wrestling's television series was lost in a studio fire in 1986?

For National Wrestling Conference

... that in 1995, The Ultimate Warrior agreed to make an appearance for the Las Vegas-based National Wrestling Conference after nearly three years in self-imposed exile?
... that the National Wrestling Conference formed a partnership with The Ultimate Warrior which included jointly promoting Warrior University?
1. ...and that Warrior's abrupt departure weeks later, and his erratic behavior leading up to their debut event, is blamed for causing the NWC's first bankruptcy?
...that the National Wrestling Conference's controversial KKK storyline was the basis of an episode of the Netflix series GLOW?
...that during a National Wrestling Conference show, Cactus Jack piledrove Sabu onto a blackjack table at the Silver Nugget Casino?
...that the National Wrestling Conference pioneered the use of the internet to promote itself and interact with wrestling fans across the country using AOL Chat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.220.17 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the immense delay. I'm a little more used to reviewing things simply based on notability rather than things like WP:NOTESSAY. I think the pages are a little too dependent on things that wouldn't traditionally be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. What I mean is that a lot of the sources seem to be self-published sources and fora. While the personal website of someone significant can be used for an opinion or experience attributed to them (for example this source from Percy Pringle), they shouldn't really be used for claiming things happened in Wikipedia's voice. If we first look at Draft:International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi), examples of sources that aren't great for Wikipedia include this Facebook source and various forum posts like this (can we really be sure that's Izzy Slapawitz?). Try to focus on the book sources and the newspaper ones. Don't be afraid to cut down on detail that is sourced to self-published things like podcasts, because articles need to be based on reliable sources. I think much of what I've said apply for both drafts. Primefac, since you declined both of them back in December, do you have anything to add? Sdrqaz (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you getting back to me. The Facebook page is run by Gil Culkin who co-promoted ICW with his father. Also there's a lot of wrestlers who've been interviewed by WrestlingClassics.com or, like Slapawitz, wrote a few articles for the Kayfabe Memories website. I believe wrestling personalities who posted on the message board, most famously Lou Thesz and Jack Brisco, were verified by the owners. I can easily remove those sources though. This was very helpful, thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Shadow docket (Inf-in MD)

Hi there - I wanted to crate such an article (my first!) , and saw a note that there is already a draft, of which you started and appear to be maintaining. How do we get this moved into the main article space? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: I'm hoping to get that draft into the mainspace soon (less than a month, hopefully). There are still some sources linked on that page that I haven't yet written about and it's been a little difficult structuring it. I'm still not comfortable with it being moved into the mainspace at the moment, given the gaping holes in it. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if I can help you in any way. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: Just a head's-up: shadow docket is in the mainspace now. A fuller explanation on how that happened can be found here, but in essence it is two pages on the same topic jammed together. As you'd expect from a rushed merge, the structure and prose is quite clunky so help is welcome! Sdrqaz (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll see what I can do. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It is very well written, BTW. :) Inf-in MD (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but I can't take all the credit for that :) Sdrqaz (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I just finished reading the whole genesis of this making it out of the Draft Space, so yeah - kudos to Jaydavidmartin, and Mz7, too. Inf-in MD (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: The initial message was titled "Shadow Docket"; this heading was renamed to "Shadow docket (Inf-in MD)".

Page on Bryce Lyon

Thank you for your comments. Please delete the page on Bryce Lyon, retaining the page on Bryce D. Lyon. Or move it back into my sandbox delyon51. I lack the technical skills to write this article. Initially, the article was rejected for lack of references. I do not know how to create footnotes so I linked to books and created a reference section. But if I were an editor, I would delete a lot of my references because they breakup the flow.

I wrote the article from Bryce's CV. Would it help to upload the CV? And how does one upload? Yet, again the CV is verification of the article. Ugh.

And thanks!§ Eve Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delyon51 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Eve, you may find Help:Referencing for beginners to be useful, or Help:Referencing for beginners without using templates for an even simpler version. Basically put your source in these <ref>...</ref> tags after the information you want to source (so for example

Lee Ji-eun is a best-selling Korean singer.<ref>Sdrqaz [www.sdrqaz.com/iu Profile of IU], ''The Sdrqaz Times'', 25 August 2021. Retrieved 2 September 2021</ref>

) and put {{reflist}} after a "References" heading. As for the CV, do the many universities have profiles of Lyon on their websites? The problem with uploading a CV yourself is that it's essentially a self-published source and not what most Wikipedians would consider to be a reliable source. Maybe there's a book that Lyon wrote where there is some information about him, or even better a source written about him? Or maybe Lyon's personal website, which can be used for uncontroversial information? Sdrqaz (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding my message on Delyon51's talk page.

Nate Morris request

Hello again! I hope you don't mind I noted two additional memberships at the end of my request here. I understand you're still planning to review the request and update the article appropriately, since you have the necessary source text, but please let me know if I need to seek help elsewhere. Thanks so much! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved, finally. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Shadow docket (Jaydavidmartin)

Hi Sdrqaz. I created a page for Shadow docket, but noticed when I went to transfer what I had written to the mainspace that you had previously created the page, only to have its contents moved to draftspace (my apologies if it is ordinary procedure to first check if a draft exists for a page). You appear to have a good deal of further information in your draft, so feel free to move any information you would like to Shadow docket and make adjustments as you see fit. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Jay, I can't believe it. I've been working on that page since February, and all of those efforts seem to have been in vain. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No! I'm sorry. Much of what you have written can easily be incorporated into the page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if I erred in not first checking if a draft page existed and assisting you there instead. I've typically been creating drafts in subpages of my userspace so it did not occur to me to look in the draftspace until I had already written an entire article and gone to copy-paste it to Shadow docket.Jaydavidmartin (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jaydavidmartin: The shadow docket is a topic that interests me as well, and I also previously offered to help Sdrqaz with constructing the draft. Since the content of the two pages are now merged together, I've gone ahead and also merged the revision histories of the two pages together as well. This helps clarify the attribution required for the merged content. Best, Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work, M. I've nominated it for DYK (I either had less than a day left to nominate it based off the first time it was moved to the mainspace, or six days based on yesterday's creation. Either way, not risking it). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: The initial message was titled "Shadow docket"; this heading was renamed to "Shadow docket (Jaydavidmartin)".

Question

please can I ask a question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiyun (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Samiyun. What's your question? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

How can I use hotcat Samiyun (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If you go to the "Editing" section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and tick the "HotCat" box and save your changes, you can enable it there. There's a little more information on how to use the tool here too. However, since you're on mobile, you can't really access HotCat (gadgets only work on the desktop). If you're desperate to use HotCat on your phone, you can go to the very bottom of your screen and there should be a "Desktop" link there. If you tap that, that will give you the desktop view and you can use HotCat. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

How long does it take for an article to be approved Samiyun (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Samiyun, could you explain a little more what you mean? If you're talking about a draft that you've put through the Articles for Creation process, the current backlog seems to be at four weeks, though that's usually for the more complicated cases. Sometimes drafts can get approved in days or even less time. If you're talking about an article in the mainspace (you might hear them called "live" articles), they don't need to be approved, but have to be "patrolled" before they can appear in searches online like Google. That also usually takes a couple of days. I'm also a little curious why you've chosen me to ask these questions (although I enjoy answering them), since I don't think we've ever interacted. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, will like you to be my mentor Samiyun (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Given my question has gone unanswered, I'm afraid I'm not willing to be your mentor. I'm not experienced enough to be anyone's mentor, anyway. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, please send me a mail (Redacted) Samiyun (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Samiyun, if you want to send (or receive) email from folks, you should use the "email this user" feature (and set an email address for yourself on your account). Posting your email here is not a good idea. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks Samiyun (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.

Page mover granted

Hello, Sdrqaz. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! – bradv^🍁 03:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Brad. My previous request took about three weeks to be approved, so I thought a week before the trial's end wouldn't be enough time but was pleasantly surprised. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Page on Olgar J. Nielsen

Hi, i would like to get a more concrete answer on why the page was moved to draft?

There are thousands of pages similar to this one and i can not see what the difference is if someone else created it?

I just a football player page, it should not be any different from for example, Jóan Símin Edmundsson, Gilli Rólantsson and so on?

I look forward to hearing from you, i may seem irritated by the way i´m writing, but i can assure you i´m just trying to learn and understand.

Sincerly FaroeseEditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaroeseEditer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@FaroeseEditer: The difference is that editors with a conflict of interest often find that they cannot make objective decisions on the article. There's more information available at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Why is conflict of interest a problem?. That's why pages created by editors with a conflict of interest should go through the Articles for Creation process, as it allows another editor without a conflict of interest to look through and review the page. As for the other football players you've mentioned (Jóan Símun Edmundsson and Gilli Rólantsson), they are clearly different from Olgar J. Nielsen given that they are both professional footballers and part of the national football team, while Nielsen is an amateur football player who made an appearance for the "Faroe Islands Fans national football team" (I assume that is distinct from the full national team), going off the description in the article. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of Olgar J. Nielsen to Draft:Olgar J. Nielsen.

Thanks for deleting my unwanted page!

-Teertrevo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teertrevo (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Teertrevo, you're welcome. If you have any other unwanted pages that you created, you can add {{db-author}} to the page and an administrator will help you delete it (I'm not actually an administrator; I just tag pages). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding Classical Menswear.

Naga people

Is there a place called 'Lanka' now?. Naga people lived in Sri Lanka so the page name should also be that. Can you please educate yourself about the subject first before calling something "clearly inappropriate"?. And, can you explain the authority you have to 'ask me to explain'? YaSiRu11 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

YaSiRu11, I have no opinion on whether the page should be named "Naga people (Sri Lanka)" or "Naga people (Lanka)". As I stated, what I do have an opinion on is that it should not be called "Naga people0000". That is what I was calling "clearly inappropriate" (as shown by the link in my message). I have zero authority over you; I am an editor just like you. But being part of the Wikipedia community carries with it an obligation to be accountable for what you've done, regardless of whoever's asking. Administrators and people with hour-long accounts (or no accounts) have asked me about my actions, and I have responded because communication is required on Wikipedia. I have told you to use the requested moves process or post at the technical requests noticeboard if you think it is an uncontroversial change, instead of cut-and-pasting articles. You have ignored me, and have continued with your behaviour (cut; paste). Please stop. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following my message on YaSiRu11's talk page. The initial message was titled "Reply"; this heading was renamed to "Naga people".

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for point out my "inadvertent error". I'm glad that we have editors like you over here. You are making a difference. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi: Thank you for the encouragement! As you said, mistakes are human nature, and I've certainly made my fair share of them. We're all part of something greater here.

Sdrqaz (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the rejection of an move request at the technical noticeboard.

Help needed on Jonathan D. Gray page

Hi Sdrqaz. Thanks for the help you have given in the past with the bio of Jonathan D. Gray. Recently, an editor responded to an additional edit request I made in what seems to me a peculiar way, and I am hoping you can take a look. The editor's response was "After careful review of the article and its sources, I deem that it is good as is, this request is therefore unnecessary" without offering any other reason why the edits should not be made. I find this confusing and a bit strange, and that is why I am asking you, a more experienced editor, to please take a look at my edit request, and hopefully implement the request if you feel it makes sense and improves the article. Thanks for any continued help you can provide. ThomasClements Blackstone (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ThomasClements Blackstone, "confusing and a bit strange" is right. I've carried out the uncontentious changes, but cannot access the sources to verify the fourth proposed change due to a paywall (see my statement on the talk page). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Frost* Day and Age edits

Thanks Sdrqaz for the edits, I saw the edits, I will limit my copied text and make sure any quoted text is marked as such in the future. Kimjalh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjalh (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Kimjalh; it's good that you understand. However, you need to stop removing the {{copyvio-revdel}} template from Day and Age (Frost* album) (here and here), and revert yourself. The template is needed so administrators can change the visibility of those revisions, so Wikipedia does not host those copyright violations. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Understood. Thanks again. Kimjalh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjalh (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Julio César Martín

You moved this page to a draft citing COI, with good reason. However the article as it now stands seems perfectly acceptable and IMO could be moved back to mainspace (as he is notable per se as a bishop, and notable independently due to his stance on LGBT rights). And it is not a stub, unlike many bishop articles. Oculi (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oculi, I'd personally prefer that it went through the AfC process, but if you (as an editor without a conflict of interest) feel that it's fine for the mainspace, please go ahead. Thanks for discussing with me. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Kemi Badenoch on British Government frontbench

is now in the FCDO - https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-development-office

How do you shift her in the article/page, can you help perform it?

Thank you

Condo951795 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Condo951795, I think I've done what you're asking for here. If not, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you however if you read the link again, she is as you edited under the FCDO. How do you create a new line in the FCDO table below Wendy Morton? Condo951795 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Condo951795: Since you're using the desktop website, I think using the Visual Editor may be helpful for you when you want to edit these tables. After you click "edit", you can change to the Visual Editor by clicking the pencil icon at the top right. After that, if you click on Badenoch's row in the table, there should be an arrow at the left of the row. If you click that, you can move it below. Give it a try, and if you're still struggling, I'll carry the edit out.

I had thought Badenoch was a Minister of State in both the Foreign Office and Housing Ministry, given that she was listed as being "Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, jointly with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Minister for Equalities)" at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointments-september-2021, but it's interesting that she's at a lower rank in a different department. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)