User talk:ToadetteEdit

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

Welcome to my user talk page. Here, you can post to me anything, reminding that Wikipedia is not like Messenger or WhatsApp. Sign your post using four tlides (~~~~) after each message. If I post something to you, comment there, and leave a {{talkback}} template here. After leaving the message, consider watching this page or subscribing the thread to stay updated. Inappropriate messages will be removed without notice. Stale discussions older than 7 days will be archived by a bot. When leaving messages, please do not ping me here (see this page for more info), as I will continue to be alerted by the system.
You are new? Consider using Wikipedia's introduction to start your editing journey. All questions are welcome here, or at the Teahouse. For editors with drafts, I am happy to review your drafts by just asking me.
A note to editors: Please do not use the rollback feature except reverting vandalism. All reverts must specify why the revert was made. Please leave discussions intact unless it is a personal attack.
Threads starts below. Also note that these threads may be newsletters, especially from The Signpost

Reverting without warnings[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. [Sorry for templating you. I know you are aware but I noticed you had not been using these recently.] ElENdElA (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @ElENdElA, but I was using SWViewer which does not automatically place user warnings upon reverting. I have forgiven you. ToadetteEdit! 20:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did not think I needed to be forgiven! WP:TW may be better for you. ElENdElA (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
Going into the fire is hard, and coming out unscathed is even harder. Mes félicitations. ——Serial Number 54129 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zurolo (surname)[edit]

Dear reviewer, I forward you the text that I wrote to you and sent under the discussion page of the ''non-approval of the Zurolo article (surname)'': I am very surprised by the fact that my draft which has been in preparation for months has been further rejected, among other things, it is rich in content and I even recovered it from a ''historical book'', with respect to the surname Zurlo or some other Italian guy there's a lot that I highlighted in the draft. It is true that I have included secondary sources but mainly, I have also highlighted and cited the ''official sources'', as you can see. I wanted to ask you now, if possible, to transfer the information from this draft in progress to the Zurlo page on Wikipedia, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurlo, perhaps we will enrich this and delete the draft. GiovAngri (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GiovAngri, as a suggestion, go move all the content of the draft to the article, provided that you give attribution (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), then you can tag it with {{db-g7}}. ToadetteEdit! 21:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: reliable sources help[edit]

Hello, ToadetteEdit. You have new messages at Draft_talk:Kindle Unlimited.
Message added 14:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Bramble Lion (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Grand Hotel (Locarno)[edit]

Hi, I removed the "reviewed" mark because there are some copyright issues with the page, see copyvio report Broc (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hanks for the heads up. I am too tired now, should check for copyvios next time. ToadetteEdit! 20:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It's easy to forget but it's one of the key aspects of WP:NPP :) Broc (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hook (2022 TV series)[edit]

You just reviewed this article and moved it to the main NS. However, upon examining the article, it doesn't appear to meet WP:N criteria yet. The article lacks citations from WP:RS. I'm curious about the basis of your review. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar concerns arise with Wonderland (Pakistani TV series). Please exercise caution when reviewing articles concerning Pakistani TV dramas, films, and actors. There are serial socks creating paid articles in this domain using questionable references. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, what do you mean by the socks? How are the sources unreliable? ToadetteEdit! 18:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There've been some WP:SOCKFARM (Nauman335, Pakistanpedia and Bttowadch to name a few) busy creating BLPs for Pakistani actors and Pakistani TV shows/films who aren't really WP:N. Both Hook (2022 TV series) and Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) using not-so-reliable sources like The Azb, Howbiz Fashion, Cutacut Hum Sab, Review it, Effie Pakistan, Niche, Social Diary, Galaxy Lollywood, Fuchsia, Minutes Mirror, The Brown Identity and Pakistani. These sites aren't exactly WP:RS - most of them are into churning out gossip and WP:PROMO than journalism. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ReviewIt and Fuchia Magazine are certainly unreliable. Looking at The Brown Identity, their About us page states "The Brown Identity is a space for everyone to talk about what they like, don’t like, what they wish they could talk about without worrying about fitting into pigeonholes. We feature guest content, tv reviews, interviews, everything under one big brown sky!" so WP:UGC/unreliable. Teasers and cast announcements are press releases/promo/run-of-the-mill. Galaxy Lollywood seems tabloid-ish and I note at the bottom of the page the copyright is dated way back in 2021 which is sign of a non-reputable source. They also do not have an About us page or anything indicating their editorial standards. Those are just some of things that pop out to me. S0091 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved both pages back to draft NS as I feel they're not yet prepared for the main NS. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the bold move, but I will not review the draft; let another reviewer review it, provided the unreliable sources given. ToadetteEdit! 15:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: How about taking the lead on the review? You also seem to have a good understanding of WP:RS. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your 9b close[edit]

Hey there, Toadette! The 9b close is up for some discussion at RFA2024 phase II, and i just wanted to ask you to clarify something: when you closed 9b, did you find consensus to exempt RfA from any civility enforcement against aspersions that don't directly allege policy violations? See this thread for context, your input would be appreciated :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

89.9% Copyright violation in an AfC you accepted: Tadeusz Słobodzianek[edit]

Hello Toadette, I noticed that one of the articles you recently accepted at AfC has an 89.9% copyright violation; the article is Tadeusz Słobodzianek. I checked another one also, National Picture Theatre, Kingston upon Hull which has 25%.

Could you please make certain to check for COPYVIOS when working at AfC? Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone, this was the second time I have been brought up with this issue. I will really be checking Earwig's tool. I haven't accepted or reviewed the latter though. Thanks for the heads up! ToadetteEdit! 04:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalker here. @Netherzone I do not think the 89.9% similarity in Tadeusz Słobodzianek amounts to copyright violation. The copied material is merely a list of awards, which have little to no original content in it. A high percentage in Earwig does not automatically constitute a copyvio. What do you think? Broc (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Broc I think it's best practices to check for and remedy copyvios and close paraphrasing, esp. when Earwig's tool identifies exactly where that is in the article. It's usually a fix that can be made by sending a note to the article creator, or the reviewer themself making the fixes before accepting the draft. In this case the part of the article which is problematic is in the plays that are listed between 1983 and 2011 which is word-for-word copy-pasting with just a few words changed.
The "extra step" of running the draft thru a COPYVIO detector should be part of the review process. It's so easy to do! I don't know if the use of AI will make copyvio issues worse or better, but I think an eye should be kept out.
@ToadetteEdit, thanks for letting us know that you didn't review the second one. (I must have read that incorrectly, sorry!) I've struck that comment. Hope all is well! Netherzone (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone maybe what I meant is not clear. There is simply no copyright in a list of awards, as it lacks the threshold of originality. Rewriting the list will still make it look awfully close to the original anyway, as the name of the awards are fixed.
P.S.: it's not sufficient to just send a note to the creator as you mention. Infringing material should be immediately removed and a request for WP:REVDEL added to the page. Just in this case, there is no infringement whatsoever. Broc (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broc, I hear what you are saying, however it's not just a list of awards, it is a list plus the following descriptions of each that has been copy-pasted. There are several ways to avoid close paraphrasing or copyvio in this case. The article creator could have selected the most notable ones, and written them up in a fully sourced prose paragraph using their own words; they could have formatted the list differently and written their own descriptions, they could have researched the specific works that received the award and expanded upon that, etc. As it is, itza copypasta!
BTW, I've brought this to the attention of Toadette precisely because I want her to succeed, not to be arbitrarily critical. I think she also wants to succeed and be the best editor she can be and hopefully run for promotion again in the future, which I hope she does. Netherzone (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Investigation of User:Saqib[edit]

Hey there, I added my articles Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) and Hook (2022 TV series) as per WP: Articles for creation and were accepted for publishing by you, However, User:Saqib reverted the pages to draftspace. Also he has nominated several articles for deletion without giving proper rationale. Kindly look into the matter. Earlier User:BeauSuzanne also pointed out his actions which are discouraging for me to publish articles on Wikipedia. Kindly look into the matter.Appreciate your usual cooperation.182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise ip, but I am not an admin. I am involved though. Didn't you see the thread above? In my view, Saqib's WP:BOLD move was okay, but can you explain the pages that were nominated for deletion? I am also curious that I should question you, are you the user (s) listed above in the thread? ToadetteEdit! 15:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hook (2022 TV series) and Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) are the articles. You can see that here User_talk:Drmies#BeauSuzanne, how he accused me and then being biased moved my pages to back to drafts. Please do something as I took out a lot of time to publish both of them. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you were giving false information. They weren't nominated for deletion and I do not see the editor as being biased. I am afraid that you are a suspected WP:LOUTSOCK; you should be blocked for accusing an editor as a biased person in addition to breaking the sockpuppetry policy despite warned not to. ToadetteEdit! 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Krishnamma (film)[edit]

Hi @ToadetteEdit, could you please review this page Draft:Krishnamma (film). RadisonRathod (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review it soon. ToadetteEdit! 08:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. RadisonRathod (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @RadisonRathod, I know you're just trying to be polite, but you don't need to refer to anyone here with an honorific, and it's a bit frustrating for those of us who are women when people assume everyone here is a man. Valereee (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToadetteEdit @Valereee Sorry. RadisonRathod (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! We know there are places where the use of honorifics is necessary to sound polite, and that that's all you were trying to do. English wikipedia isn't one of those places. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it @Valereee, I will keep it in mind. Thankyou! RadisonRathod (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ToadetteEdit, Kindly look into this. Im Just reminding! RadisonRathod (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RR, that draft was just declined yesterday. It can take months for a draft to be re-reviewed. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of battles in Croatia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of battles in Croatia 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/List of battles in Croatia 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 until the discussion has finished.

NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, can you please explain why did you add this, provided that the AfD page isn't created yet? ToadetteEdit! 06:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToadetteEdit The AFD was created. Your user talk page just needed cache purged. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Earl George article[edit]

Hello, my article article about Earl George was declined on the grounds that the subject is not notable enough. I have added more reliable sources to show the subject's notability. However, I believe that the original sources were reliable and showed notability, especially the sources from the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, the Communism in Washington State History Project, and the finding aid to his papers. These are all independent sources that are part of a larger social history research project by the University of Washington and meet the Wikipedia reliability guidelines. Mathieulalie (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieulalie, the reason for my decline is that other than the first and second references, the sources does not discusses the subject in depth Two sources would make the article to be weak in the field of notability. I suggest you add another one or two so that the topic would hopefully be suitable for inclusion to Wikipedia. Hope that helps! ToadetteEdit! 16:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia notability guidelines state that there must be multiple sources about the subject that meet the Wikipedia reliability guidelines. You have already stated that there were two references that met the requirements for both reliability and in-depth coverage. My draft does not contain any original research. Is there a new rule that there must be more than two reliable sources? In the past, I have always been told by other reviewers that two sources is sufficient. There are also other reliable sources in the article that discuss certain parts of George's life, which I believe further supports his notability. Mathieulalie (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not mandatory to have more than two sources, but I speculate that it may be taken to AfD. I am not declining because of only two sources in the draft. You can resubmit it and it will be accepted. ToadetteEdit! 17:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rich Burk[edit]

Toadette, from one AfC reviewer to another, you gave a poor decline. You added stating that All biographies must be cited to a source or otherwise it will be removed (see the policy on biographies of living people), presumably in reference to WP:BLPREMOVE, but the draft has ten cited sources, which is an entirely reasonable amount relative to its length. Certainly, none of the information in the draft can be considered "contentious material", which is what BLPREMOVE covers. Mach61 16:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mach61, I understood. I did this with the other. I'll be more careful of this; it should have been accepted anyways. Can you please explained by contentious materiaĺ? ToadetteEdit! 17:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToadetteEdit "Contentious" isn't formally defined, but it is usually interpreted to mean information that has been disputed by another editor, or is very likely to be, due to containing being a controversial claim. Mach61 17:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thankyou for the immense contributions. RadisonRathod (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToadetteEdit&oldid=1222830425"