User talk:Asilvering/Archive 4

Pls re-review the Draft:Chungongtu
Since you have said that the sources previously mentioned were unreliable(I do not understanf why though cause it had plenty), I have added new sources that are more reliable than the sources that you reviewed earlier, and if you see those sources, you can see for yourself that there are a looooot of sources available about the subject matter(though I must admit that the article name should be spring palace pictures than the current chungongtu, though i chose the title to be more close to its native name).So I ask you to please re review the draft....Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Waltzingmogumogupeach Sorry, that's the decline notice being a bit misleading. I declined it for "improperly sourced". I explained why in some of the tags - for example, you've cited an honours thesis, which is absolutely not a reliable source! Other problems I tagged were missing page numbers, etc. Please have a look at WP:REFB for some simple guides on how to write footnotes. It's extremely helpful for reviewers, especially when you're using source in non-English languages, to fill out a full citation with metadata using "cite book", "cite web", etc. It's not always easy to figure out what you actually mean to be citing. -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you.. i didnt realize it was a honours thesis when i reffed it..ill fix it Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, and thanks also for suggesting this ATD. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * @FormalDude Thank you, both for the barnstar and your own work in this area. :) -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Request on 15:52:18, 30 July 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Wickkey
Draft was rejected based on reviewer bias. Subject was an outstanding college football played with the best Tulane University team ever assembled. May as well remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Theodore and 1000's more like this nobody (I don't mean George is a worthless person, just that he did not accomplish much by YOUR standards).

Wickkey (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wickkey I don't have any particular bias against college football. Your draft is sourced to unreliable or user-generated sources (see WP:USERG for explanation), and additionally the sources for articles on athletes need to show non-routine, "significant coverage" of the athlete in question - ie, they can't just say things like "so-and-so scored the winning goal" or "so-and-so was injured" or whatever. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Article on Mark Steven Morton (Canadian author): notability citations added
Dear Asilvering -- I'm sorry to learn of the injury that has hindered your typing. I hope you mend well! I wanted to let you know that I have added a number of citations/footnotes to the article on Mark Steven Morton in order to affirm notability. Thank you for providing your help and expertise. -- Vesper Vesper.and.Twilight (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Vesper.and.Twilight ok, that is definitely enough to show notability! You may want to reduce the % of the article that is made of block quotes though, so it looks less like WP:PROMO. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Asilvering -- As you suggested, we've significantly trimmed back the number of block quotes (demonstrating notability) on the article for Mark Steven Morton. Thank you for that guidance. Are you able to have another look at the article and approve it if it now looks good? Thank you, Vesper Vesper.and.Twilight (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Asilvering -- As you suggested, we've significantly trimmed back the number of block quotes (demonstrating notability) on the article for Mark Steven Morton. Thank you for that guidance. Are you able to have another look at the article and approve it if it now looks good? Thank you, Vesper Vesper.and.Twilight (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vesper.and.Twilight I'll leave it for another editor. As a general rule I don't do back-to-back reviews at AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Thank you. Vesper.and.Twilight (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Integrated Media Measurement Incorporated
Hello, I am also looking for more "in-depth" sources that can account for the notability of the subject of my article currently in draft. While I am having difficulty in finding major news outlets mentioning the subject, I have found a few academic sources that mention the usage of their technology in their studies/social experiments. It was mentioned in source number 15 ( "Improving Media Measurement: Evidence From the Field" (PDF). 13 October 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-06-28. Retrieved 2023-06-28.), which was again mentioned in James G. Webster's (Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University) book "The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age". I am not quite sure how to cite a book as a source in Wikipedia. Any feedback would be of great help in refining the draft! Thanks in advance! Awildanimalism (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Awildanimalism If you want to write it out yourself, the template you're looking for is Template:Cite book. But a much easier way is to find the book's ISBN, then, using Visual Editor (the what-you-see-is-what-you-get one, not the source code editor), click "cite" in the toolbar and copy-paste the ISBN into the automatic generator field. After you accept the generated citation, be sure to edit it to add the page numbers the information is on. -- asilvering (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Kimberly Seals Allers Photo
Hi there: Last week I added an image to Commons for the Kimberly Seals Allers article, but don't know how to find it. I also have a form signed by Kimberly giving permission to use the photo and I'm not sure where to upload that. I was wondering if you might have a bit of time to help me get that accomplished. Thank you, LeepKendall (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @LeepKendall your image is here: . To release permissions, use the Interactive Release Generator here: . -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Dihgirb (03:39, 8 August 2023)
Hi! I am trying to make a wikipedia page on behalf of my boss. He runs a stratgic planning company and a podcast based on construction. Any tips on how to do this? --Dihgirb (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dihgirb there's a very good essay about this: WP:BOSS. If you have any questions that aren't answered by that essay, let me know and I'll see what I can answer. -- asilvering (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography
Dear asilvering,

I have extensively edited the draft article on the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography after the submission was rejected. More content and sources were included, and I think the relevance of the organization became clearer. Before re-submitting the draft, I would like to ask if you could go over the edited text and give me a short feedback. Is this something you can do?

Best wishes, Aoaassis (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Aoaassis, I still think you're better off adding what you can to the ICHS article instead of creating a separate draft. The standard for sourcing for organizations (WP:ORGCRIT) is very high, and it's very difficult for academic organizations to meet it, since writing about an academic org is almost invariably going to be done by members of the org itself. These guidelines have obviously been developed in response to various corporate promotional and paid editing issues, but unfortunately they apply to academic societies, publishers, etc also. Adding to the existing ICHS article will mean improved sourcing in that article (so another editor is less likely to try to get it deleted), and will also mean that you don't have to wait for a review at AfC, which is pretty backlogged right now. -- asilvering (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments! Aoaassis (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

How to delete Wiki image?
I created the following file, but incorrectly applied the wrong image. Is there a simple method to delete the file? I created another file with the correct image for the article and posted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Doctor_Stories,_short_fiction_collection_William_Carlos_Williams,_1984.jpg Thank you in advance. 36hourblock (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @36hourblock open the source code editor and add this to the top: . This works on anything you're the only substantial author of. More info here: WP:G7. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This is raises the question of a "division of labor" at Wikipedia. You have committed yourself to managing the content at Wikipedia and acting as gatekeeper: very well. You do not have the time or inclination to be a major content contributor, as I have for the past 14 years.

My understanding of the mechanisms related to loading material is, by and large, adequate to my projects. The thousands of content edits and additions I have made have gone unchallenged except through "editor envy" and the like. Your role, as I see it, is to facilitate my postings, not for me assimilate the arcane systems that govern this encyclopedia. That seems to be your bailiwick.

If you wish to delete the document I posted in error, do so. Otherwise, allow it to stand and confuse visitors, and refuse to "clean up my mess" so to speak.

As to the notability of the collection Make Light of It by Williams, biographer and literary critic Robert F. Gish comments on the collection repeatedly in William Carlos Williams: A Study of the Short Fiction (1989): See index in same. The New York Times and other newspapers have their own agenda in recognizing publications, even major publications as Make Light of It. If the article can be posted, perhaps another content contributor can provide one a contemporary comment. Or you can block the article, which is largely complete, on this single criterion.--36hourblock (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @36hourblock I'm not sure where this is coming from. I thought you wanted to know of a simple method to delete a file you uploaded in error? I told you how to do that. I didn't decline to "clean up your mess" - firstly, you didn't ask me to, but more importantly, I can't do so, since a G7 deletion request can only be applied by the editor who is the only substantial author of the page. It's an edit you have to make yourself, I'm afraid.
 * Likewise, I'm not capable of blocking your article, nor do I wish to, and I haven't declined your draft, either. Are you aware that you are not obligated to use the AfC process, and can create articles directly in mainspace? Or write in draftspace and then move your finished draft to mainspace yourself? That's what I've done for the articles I've created. One only needs to be a very minor content contributor - 4+ days and 10+ edits - to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, asilvering, for your thoughtful and informative response. --36hourblock (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Williams story about acne
Draft:The Girl With a Pimply Face: As per your request, the dead link has been deleted and related supporting content. As to the citations, the formatting works well for my purposes and provides the information of interest to readers. 36hourblock (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Margaret Chant-Papandreou
Hello,

I have removed unsourced content from the Draft:Margaret Chant-Papandreou and I have added reliable sources.

Thanks for your time. Pantelis26 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive reminder
The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:


 * We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
 * We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
 * Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
 * While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!

And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.

Thanks for signing up for the drive, and I hope to see you reviewing! Vaticidalprophet 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Speedy deletion contested: Alaa Sarhan
Hello Asilvering. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Alaa Sarhan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. BangJan1999 01:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @BangJan1999 I think you meant to send this message to someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, CSD helper had a hiccup. BangJan1999 22:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from RicardoGomez90 (16:56, 19 August 2023)
Nous pensons it's been --RicardoGomez90 (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @RicardoGomez90 Do you have a question? -- asilvering (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from RicardoGomez90 (23:18, 21 August 2023)
Yes no --RicardoGomez90 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Amogus2 (00:08, 23 August 2023)
I need help finding a page that needs editing --Amogus2 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Amogus2 What kinds of topics are you interested in? There are lots of Wikiprojects you could join. I'm in WP:BOOKS, for example. You could also try working through maintenance tags, which are placed on articles by editors when they see something that needs fixing. Have a look at WP:COM for some of those. -- asilvering (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:De fluviis
I have added several sources to my article. Could you let me know if it looks up to snuff now? Thanks! Orluvoq (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Orluvoq Great, thank you! If you don't mind, I think it would be good to add a more recent historian as well for These facts among others cause scholars to doubt heavily that any of the works and authors cited ever existed. Nothing wrong with the source that's there... but having only a historian from the 1850s makes one wonder if scholars still hold that opinion now. -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing of Gene Caesar article!
I see that you have been adding hyperlinks. I appreciate your help. Please let me know what I can do to assist. Caesarc (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Caesarc You're good to go! I've accepted the draft. I've also added your COI statement on the article talk page and your user page. (We usually try to avoid editing other users' userpages, but from your talk page I gather that you intended to do this and weren't intending to hide the COI in any way, so I hope you don't mind.) Because you're a connected contributor, if you want to make changes to the article in the future, you should use Template:Edit COI. This allows you to propose edits for another editor to make for you, so that you aren't editing your COI article directly. Feel free to ask about this here or at WP:TEA if you have any questions.
 * I hope you enjoyed writing it! WP:BOOKS would love to have you if you want to keep writing about books and authors. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all very helpful -- thank you! I would like to add some photographs, so shall I do this using the Template:Edit COI?
 * This was a summer project for me, and my fall semester starts next Monday. But I would enjoy writing more about books and authors when time permits!
 * Thanks again for your help and guidance. Caesarc (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you answered my question about photos on an earlier page -- at least the images published by Google Books. But other photos should go through the Template:Edit COI? Caesarc (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Caesarc I don't think anyone would mind if you put up photos yourself, without using the COI template. That should be fine. Have a good fall semester! -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Caesarc It may sort of be the other way around. Assuming you're thinking of pictures you've inherited or something like that, you may be required to provide some sort of confirmation of identity via mail at some point. It may never happen, I won't pretend to fully understand the laws and rules in a case like this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, make sure you choose the license that looks most appropriate and write a clear rationale. Then, even if you've picked the wrong one, it's easier for Commons volunteers to figure out what it should be. It's certainly not "own work", unless you yourself took those photos way back when! -- asilvering (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from MahmudHussenJahed (10:19, 25 August 2023)
Hello I want to add some new information in Wikipedia about some unknown history... Please suggest the process that how can i do this? --MahmudHussenJahed (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @MahmudHussenJahed well, that depends on how "unknown" this history is. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable (see WP:V) in reliable, secondary sources. Have a look also at the page about original research (WP:OR). asilvering (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 at Women In Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Beijing Arbitration Commission - Copyrighted Material
Hi. I noticed your comments at the AfD for Beijing Arbitration Commission. Do you have a particular reason for suggesting there may be copying from the commission's website? I did a few quick searches, and even a compare on the text, and I'm not seeing anything. Just wondering if you are thinking of something in particular. Oblivy (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Oblivy Sections of it sounded very much like how things would be worded on an official website, so I just wanted someone to do a check to be sure. I couldn't access the website at all at the time so it was just the gut feeling, and my suspicion that it could escape earwig's copyvio detector for the same reason it wasn't loading properly for me. If you did a few quick searches and are satisfied, I'm satisfied! -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering thanks for the quick reply. I had the same doubts, particularly the part about location in the CBD of Beijing. It's so polished. Perhaps an old version of the website copied. But I tried a few angles of attack, like pasting three- and four-word snippets into google, and I didn't get a clear hit. If nobody's complaining I think we can let it be, but it was a valid question.
 * As an aside, I've tried the website using various VPN-country locations and it's definitely not responsive from some IP's, no real pattern but maybe blocked more often from UK. Take that with a grain of salt. Oblivy (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Stlhorse on Canada Border Services Agency (13:38, 31 August 2023)
I have a question about someone sending me some valuables that are their inheritance. Question is valuables are shipped from London to Canada does Canada require any documentation for bringing in uncut diamonds? Second question Edgeline security and shipping company was holding security boxes and was shipping to a Canadian address but due to other shipment locations they sent these particular boxes with the others and they ended up in Belgium where they require a Kimberly certificate which they said was going to be very expensive due to the value. Can they be shipped back to point of origin then shipped straight to Canadian address --Stlhorse (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Stlhorse This is Wikipedia, not Canada Border Services. You'll have to contact them instead. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Request on 17:18:50, 1 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Tim Pencil
I added some clarification, can i ask you to give me your thoughts?

Tim Pencil (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tim Pencil You need independent coverage. See WP:IS. Long-form reviews (eg in a newspaper or literary magazine) of his stories will work. This one is good: . This sort of thing the sixty-second most famous person from Brantford, Ontario as well as the “Stuart McLean of a new generation” needs a reference to the people who said it (ie, it can't come from John himself). -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Jeffery B. Perry
Hello! I have been working on the page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeffrey_B._Perry that you reviewed recently. I believe I have addressed your issues with the citations in the newest version I just submitted (And I re-organized the lede as you suggested). I was hoping, since you were so helpful with your last review and seem familiar with this subject matter, that you could take a look at the current draft when you have a chance and review it again. Thank you very much. 2601:86:103:7410:9CF2:446C:C6E6:5EC (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time to check on this right now, but if it's still in the queue in a few days, feel free to message me about it again. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Computers and society resubmitted
Hi @Asilvering, just a courtesy ping that a draft you rejected way back in March has been re-written and re-submitted (how did they resubmit with a rejection?!). Draft:Computers_and_society.

Personally I still feel it reads like an essay but the test has substantially changed since your rejection, so I thought I'd let you know.  Qcne  (talk)  11:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I recall that I tried giving suggestions for what to do instead on their Talk page, but they thanked me for them and... revised the article. What a shame. They obviously know what they're talking about and could be a tremendous help on a lot of rather important neglected articles (I flagged Misinformation, for example). It appears they made a second draft and submitted that, which would get around the rejection. I assume they did this in good faith, not realizing that would complicate the review process. It looks like @Bilorv already declined it since the resubmission, and I'd trust their judgement. I don't have the time right now but I'll see what I can do about getting this split into the articles we already have on these various topics. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've declined again (but not rejected, and I didn't last time) because it still reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure that it could be turned into an article with valid scope, but there are neutrality and synthesis issues throughout that are not easy to fix. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, at a skim, I think it does read like an encyclopedia article. But that's not the problem, since what Wikipedia is after is, well, Wikipedia articles. At this point it's a genre all of its own, which causes some difficulties when people who have written regular encyclopedias or similar academic work try to write their first Wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Linda Mbunyuza (21:59, 21 September 2023)
Hi I am new here I would like to know how can I create an account for myself ? --Linda Mbunyuza (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Linda Mbunyuza You've already done so. Do you mean create an article for yourself? If so, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon October 2023 - Around the World in 31 Days
 Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from D0a5n7 (16:53, 30 September 2023)
Good afternoon, how can edits information be trusted? --D0a5n7 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * See WP:V. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Submission of article Battle of Champapuri
Hello. I made the the article Battle of Champapuri, in which you left a message that you couldn't see any result after searching on google. And that is the reason why I am trying to create this. Champapuri is the new name for Champanagar. The military conflict was happened in Champanagar between the Maratha empire and the Bengal Subah as a part of Maratha invasion of Bengal. If you want the snippet view of the sources for evidence, I can provide it. Ajayraj890 (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ajayraj890 I tried "Champanagar" too, when I checked, and got nothing. If I cannot get even one google result for the topic, it is extremely highly unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If your sources don't actually call it "Battle of Champapuri", it shouldn't have an article titled "Battle of Champapuri" on Wikipedia (we're supposed to reflect what reliable sources say about topics, not invent new names for them). Do the sources actually call it "Battle of Champapuri"?
 * Another way you could handle this sort of thing is create Timeline of the Maratha invasion of Bengal or something similar, listing various engagements and their outcomes chronologically. That way you don't need to ensure that every single battle is notable in itself, since the entire conflict is notable (though please don't invent names for them if sources just say things like "on blah date there was a battle at Champapuri"). -- asilvering (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. But in case of naming a military conflict, it was always used as Battle of "the specific place where battle occured". If that is not the case, check the articles of the category Category:Battles involving the Sikhs. Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 If any of those are not called "Battle of Whatever" in the sources, they too should not have "Battle of Whatever" as their title. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, then you have to check the Battle of Kolhapur. It doesn't even cite a source. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And I have a question. How can we represent a military conflict then? Most of the Wikipedia pages related to military conflicts are titled as "Battle of Whatever" way. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 You represent them as they are referred to in the sources. If the sources don't really refer to a conflict by any particular name, saying things more like "on January 3, the two forces met briefly, with only minor casualties", they're probably not notable, so they shouldn't have an article. Instead, they can be mentioned in the article about the overall conflict (eg the war), or in a list-type article like the timeline I suggested. If you have something like "on January 3, the two forces met briefly, with only minor casualties; two days later, the Battle of Champapuri began", you can mention the Jan 3 attack in the article on the following battle. Basically, you discuss the more minor engagements wherever it makes the most sense to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * understood. I know you what you mean. But check Skirmish of Chenab. You can clearly see that it was a minor conflict (skirmish). It is just an example. There are even more articles like that. So, I thought it was normal. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 Unfortunately, "normal" sometimes just means that no one else has noticed a problem yet. To be clear, it's ok to have articles on minor skirmishes, provided we have sources that talk about them in some depth. The problem isn't that it's a skirmish, the problem is that, if we don't have much in-depth sourcing to use, it fails WP:N. The other problem is related to WP:citogenesis - basically, if Wikipedia reports that something is "a thing", and another supposedly reliable source picks that up, Wikipedia ends up having effectively rewritten history. We're supposed to follow what published historians say about history - not the other way around! Personally, I'm much more concerned by this second issue. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the article that I mentioned above doesn't says much about the skirmish. It explains the campaign of Nader Shah in India, which is already in many articles. I am concerned about the issue of rewriting history. There was an article called 'Battle of Umberkhind' which was used by many authors in their book. Unfortunately, there wasn't such a battle. It was just a military confrontation. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 Yes, now that I've had time to look through those references, I've placed a PROD on that article as failed verification. Thanks for pointing it out. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And check Maratha occupation of Kolistan (1672) too. It only have one source cited. Infact, the source doesn't say anything about a military conflict. The editors even added the involvement of English forces, which is not in the cited source. Here is the link of the source: https://archive.org/details/shivajihistimes00sarkrich, page no 219-220Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 This one does at least look like it did happen, so rather than deletion, the thing for you to do here is to write what you can verify from the source, and remove the stuff that isn't in that source. Use "not in source" or "no source" in your edit summary when you remove text so people know why you're doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will do that. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have a question. A user reverted by edit by giving an explanation that :"We don't allow British era sources on Wikipedia". Is that statement right? This happened in the article of Sambhaji. Moreover, I think the British sources are the most unbiased and reliable since many books are biased. Ajayraj890 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 That's not exactly correct literally as written, but I think the editor who reverted you was probably right to do so - have a look at WP:RAJ. This isn't an official policy or guideline but it does explain why we need to be cautious with British sources from the time. Honestly, in general you want to avoid anything that old anyway, whether it's for WP:RAJ reasons or not. The field of history has changed a lot in the past century! I'd be pretty leery of anything written before the 1960s, and of a lot of stuff written since then. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So from where should I collect information? I mean, of which era? Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 I'm not an expert in Indian history so I don't have anything much more specific to say than what I've already said, I'm afraid. In theory, the more recent the source, the better, but as you've found, things that post-date Wikipedia can have their own problems. And sometimes the old sources really are still the canonical ones (for better or for worse). fwiw, I think you're probably fine with Raj-era stuff for the overall narrative ("this battle happened on this date and so-and-so won"), but where possible you'll want to check it against something more recent. I definitely wouldn't trust anything qualitative ("so-and-so did this because of this reason", "so-and-so was this kind of person", etc), and I wouldn't likely trust anyone repeating those claims more recently unless they had more to go on than just "this Raj-era guy said so". -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. But the reason why I trust old sources is that most of the new sources used Wikipedia as a reference. I will go with post-British era sources from now. Ajayraj890 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 Yes, definitely avoid things that used Wikipedia as a reference! If you haven't found it already, have a look at WP:CITOGENESIS. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ajayraj890 (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Important messege
Hello, I have an important information to share with you. Could you please check the authenticity of the article Battle of Palkhed. I just found out that there is no such a battle. It was a peace treaty. There was no military conflict, nor the involvement of the Mughal Empire. I recently deleted some unreliable sources from the article you can check that too. I can provide much information about this event from reliable sources. Ajayraj890 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Ajayraj890, I'm not sure what you mean by "provide much information about this event from reliable sources", since you also say "there is no such battle". What event do you have reliable sources for? -- asilvering (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can give you the explanation about the event. There wasn't a battle. The both party signed peace treaty without a military conflict. If you read those you will understand the difference between the real event and how that was modified when it became the article. What really happened is:
 * The Peshwa of Maratha Empire Baji Rao plundered and ravaged the territories of the Nizam of Hyderabad (Asaf Jah). To avenge this, Nizam attacked the territories of Peshwa and set his camp near a place called 'Palkhed'. Baji Rao reached there and surrounded the camp of Nizam. Nizam was accompanied with Sambhaji II, who was the friend of Nizam and the enemy of the Peshwa. Peshwa wanted Sambhaji to surrender but Nizam signed a treaty (treaty of 'Mungi-Shevgaon').
 * This is the real event. If you want the sources, I can provide. None of the older sources depict this as a battle other than the sources which used Wikipedia as a reference. Ajayraj890 (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ajayraj890 It looks like you've got this one under control for now? Let me know if you have further questions or need some help. -- asilvering (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I was really shocked after finding out that there wasn't such a battle. Even some books took this as a reference. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's often shocking to see how people who ought to know better use Wikipedia as a reference without even double-checking the sources, let alone doing any other research. Keep on fighting the good fight... and good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Kachiib (17:22, 13 October 2023)
Hello, I am new here. How do I create an article? --Kachiib (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Kachiib, sorry I didn't see this earlier! Have you found WP:FIRST yet? -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Beautybella06 (10:54, 15 October 2023)
hello! how i can post piece of information --Beautybella06 (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Beautybella06, I see you received a welcome message on your user Talk page. Did those links help, or do you still have questions? -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Aranmanai 4
Anoop Bhatia (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC) I have a doubt about the source used. The Hindu passes as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. The Times of India is questionable as per it but it didn't say it's unreliable, also it says Times of India can be used for film reviews. So what's your openion about the sources? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Anoopspeaks At this point the sourcing is irrelevant. See WP:NFF. -- asilvering (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @asilvering Are you referring to this statement, 'Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles'? Does this mean I need to add filming details? I apologize if my questions seem trivial, but I'm having trouble understanding what you meant by 'sourcing is irrelevant'. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, right now it just says it was announced last month - way too early to be a "sure thing". When a film is in a series, like this one is, usually upcoming films are listed on that article (so, Aranmanai (film series)) until we're sure they're actually happening as planned. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks 😊 Anoop Bhatia (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from FTRWM on Doom (franchise) (22:22, 23 October 2023)
How to hack fb --FTRWM (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I see you
improving wikipedia you are ;) I liked what you said to Immanuelle. Go you Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby Thanks. They are really obviously trying to help as best they can, so it's a shame to see. (I hope) unrelatedly, I noticed your recent edits to your userspace. If you're taking a wikibreak yourself, I hope it's restorative, and I hope you come back soon feeling renewed. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

She actually seems quite sweet but there was already no way Sisyphus would ever finish WP:PNT before I ever pointed that Icelandic Commons editor who was drowning in her Japanese translations at ANI. It truly had to be done. But you saved me from asking if she is still using Chat GPT. If she only would edit in whatever her native language is? I get even more tired just thinking about that. Russian invasion of Ukraine and Holocaust in Poland make a long 18 months. It's tuff to case about the truth and yes your advice to her sounded like a good idea. Maybe let someone else get accused of OR for explaining the Hague convention. Yes our articles on that are subtly wrong and probably also written by ChatGPT, but apparently this is not a problem, and ibam cray cray to think otherwise, so. And that's the least of it really. Current mood:1:30

Now listen to it from the beginning ;) I know it's a little long but it's worth it IMHO. You said find joy and give it to a friend, right? It's just a really great jam, and who cares if disinformation is winning and it's uncivil to say so.

Rant Over

On a completely different note, you might also like his Choctaw Bingo

Maybe it's time to break out the Tintin and Astérix. Email is enabled on the account. Account isn't going anywhere even if it was just a dream, just a dream. Elinruby (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yamato Okunitama
I really do appreciate your efforts to find ways for Immanuelle to contribute productively. Harnessing enthusiasm to the benefit of the project is a thankless task, so here's me thanking you. But heads up on the Yamato Okunitama draft. I had a few minutes, so I took a look. The page numbers on the Kidder Himiko source don't seem to match up quite right (and certainly need more specificity to even get to the verification step), and the summary interpretations cited to Kidder are, I would say, superficial readings of more complicated claims that distinguish between legend and interpretation. If you have access, check out the paragraph on p. 153 starting with Several implications are lodged and you can probably see what I mean, since a person quickly reading the first two sentences might easily skip over the important rest of the paragraph and surrounding context and come up with This has been suggested as representing a population migration (not that I know what "this" or "representing" means in that sentence). Let's not even discuss the "To this day" sentence in the draft cited to a 19th century source.That's what I noticed in a few minutes, though I admit that my eyes glazed over when I encountered that much rōmaji in one place. I wish I had more time to help out, but needing more people with more time/language/access to help out is kind of the problem, I guess. If the draft does get to mainspace, in my opinion it would need a rewrite to cleanly separate (and credit) analysis from legend, e.g. "what Sujin is said to have done" from "what Sujin is said to believe about what Sujin is said to have done" from "what scholars think Sujin was doing" from "what scholars think that the saying of things about Sujin was doing". On the other hand, when the gods stride the earth again, they will be so stoked that we speak of their legends in wikivoice! Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I was afraid of that. Thanks for taking a first pass at it. The bad news is that most of that draft was pulled from other articles that are already in mainspace, so those may well be live errors that don't originate with Immanuelle. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you, and sympathize. So much of our Japan-related content comes from well-meaning "translations" of terrible/incompatible Japanese Wikipedia articles that the "translators" are not equipped to evaluate in the first place. Anyway, I picked the Kidder refs to check because Immanuelle added them recently, so that's an indicator of what they're up to now, for better or worse. Thanks again for your efforts. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * btw, I see on your userpage that you've only nominated one GA, but The Fall of Language in the Age of English sure looks like one to me at a quick skim. Want to nominate it? It would count for the Women in Green GA editathon and I'll happily review it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Kind of you to offer! Looking it over myself, I can see a couple of things that certainly can be improved through the review process, but sure, let's go for it. I'm assuming the WIG thing is that around-the-world October event? If that's the case, then I'll prioritize responding to questions/concerns in order to meet their deadline. Now to see if I remember how to nominate an article... Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! I've claimed the review and I'll get to it by the end of the week. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Aeon Trespass:Odyssey
Draft:Aeon Trespass: Odyssey

@Asilvering thank you for your comment. Yes there are other reviews that came up recently.

I could link some to you, but what kind of reliable source is accepted ?

Do you want something more like a news outlet (game informer: ) or something like a video is accepted ? (dicetower: Aeon Trespass: Odyssey Review: Kingdom Life Monster|The Dice Tower) Renan Petrere (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Renan Petrere Generally editors tend to prefer text, but there's no rule against videos. WP:RS is the main guidance on what is reliable. The Video Games wikiproject also has a project-specific list at WP:GAMESOURCES. Your article isn't about a video game but I expect most of the advice there still applies. If that doesn't help feel free to ask further questions. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Asilvering:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

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

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Merajm309 (10:00, 2 November 2023)
Tq --Merajm309 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

List of first ladies of Mississippi
Thanks for your comments and I agree about NLIST...clear as mud. My concern was it is largely incomplete and there was no source about them as group or set but maybe that does not matter if at least some of the entries have articles and likely others warrant one. I went back and forth in my head about it and having another opinion was helpful so I accepted it. S0091 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @S0091 Now we wait to see if it gets AfD'd, I suppose... not that the result is likely to make either of us feel more confident! I feel a bit like AfC should let through any lists that aren't obviously spurious, since AfDs there seem to come down to a coin flip and we probably shouldn't have single reviewers adjudicating cases where the consensus is so dependent on who shows up to AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of topics at AfD are a coin flip lol (NCORP, NSPORT, NEVENT, etc). Yeah, I think you are right about lists and appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. S0091 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse
Hello User Asilvering. I am answering your question on Teahouse here since it is not available on Teahouse any longer.

You asked what article was the problem and whether it was Bangladesh genocide, the answer is yes. There are many thing wrong but the main problem is the nature of the genocide is being twisted to imply that Bengali Muslims were responsible for it and say that it was solely targeting Bengali Hindus. The sources being used and cited are not followed. They are being misused and it is twisting the very character of the events. It is deeply saddening that such things can be carried out here on this kind of topic.

The factual characterization of the genocide is that the Pakistani Army and their military administration of the time demonized Bengalis as a whole and one of their smears was that they had too much Hindu influence/were all culturally really Hindu (being Hindu is obviously not a bad thing but that's how they saw it). Bengali Hindus were definitely under a double whammy and suffered disproportionate deaths but the sheer majority of deaths were that of non-Hindus since Hindus were a minority and the targeting was indiscriminately against Bengalis regardless of faith. All this can be found in the sources cited but this nuance is lost and worse it is being used to twist it in such a manner.

I have talked in more depth in the talk page about it and brought sources or clarified what sources say but it is ignored and the page is under extended protection. MrMkG (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Well, my advice would be to go to the noticeboard at WP:NPOVN and post basically what you have said here. Hopefully, this will get more eyes on the topic, so that you don't have the problem of consensus being blocked by a single editor. Be clear about what sources you are using, and make it as easy as possible for other editors to verify that the sources say what you say they do. As for being followed around, the best way to deal with this is to stick to WP:AGF and tell yourself "they are not following me". First, because they may actually not be following you, and there's no point in getting frustrated over something that isn't true. But second, because maybe they are following you, assuming good faith is the best way to defuse this. Keep in mind that most people here really do want to make a better encyclopedia - even the people who aren't very good at making an encyclopedia, and even the people who can't see their own biases. Try your absolute best to work with this person as though they are one of those people. Extend them absolutely as much good faith as you possibly can. If you have to disagree with them, be brief and clear, so that it is easy for others to read your arguments and understand them. Remember that you're often trying to convince an unknown reader, not the person you're directly replying to. Do not make personal attacks, do not speculate on their motives, and if you feel frustrated or angry, go take a walk or something before coming back and replying. Hopefully, they are indeed a person who really does want to make a better encyclopedia, and this will sort out the situation on its own. If it doesn't, and the other person continues to be completely intractable and pov-pushing, you will eventually go to WP:ANI or to arbcom about it. If you have followed this advice, and if you yourself are not misrepresenting the sources, the other party will be topic-banned or blocked from editing, because it will be clear that you are doing everything you can, and what they are doing is being a dick. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Kunitama
The draft Draft:Kunitama was recently rejected due to being poorly sourced. It was very surprising to me. Do you agree with the ruling? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 04:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Phew, just a decline. I was very shocked to read you say "rejected". I know the terminology is... not intuitive, but this is just a decline, not a reject. Sorry I didn't get back to this draft earlier. I still think this draft needs work, but it doesn't need notability-proving work. That is done. I'll accept it for you. -- asilvering (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh is rejection just if it’s considered contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? I think I got it once or twice like in this one Draft:Kajikito Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle yes, see how that one says "rejected" and doesn't give you a resubmit option? Otherwise, they will say "submission declined". -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering also btw do you think an infobox for Kunitama in the Japanese empire section would be useful? Since Kunitama was often treated in practice as a single deity? Or is it just so generally confusing it shouldn't be present anywhere? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In general I'm pro-infobox, but in that article I do think it's more likely to confuse readers than to help them get useful info quickly. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering understandable. I was really heavily confused about this concept too in this way. btw do you think that this draft Draft:Ichinoyama Kofun is sufficiently well sourced if we accept the Japanese source as not a violation? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle er, it looks like someone has given you a WP:V decline on that. I have no idea why, since you aren't citing unreliable sources. I would still decline this one though - this kind of information should be on Furuichi Kofun Cluster. See how almost all of the information in this draft is not actually about Ichinoyama kofun? The point here isn't to have all information possible as diffused into as many individual articles as possible. The point is to make information available as clearly and usefully as possible. So if "Ichinoyama kofun" is a reasonable thing to look for information on, we do want to have either an article on it or a redirect for it. But if most of the information you need to understand Ichinoyama kofun is the same information you need to understand all the other kofun in the group, we don't want to duplicate that across however many different articles. That's harder for us to maintain, and it's less useful for readers. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering I think you made a good point on that. I merged the paragraph on the decline of the system to the article on Furuichi Kofun Cluster. I am still convinced it might be independently notable as an imperial grave, unlike many of the other Kofun you declined from the Makimuku ruins, but it was a bit off topic. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle What I was talking about was not a notability issue. We don't actually want separate articles on every notable topic. We want those topics to be covered where it makes the most sense for them to be covered, which often is a separate article - but not always. Here's WP:N: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). -- asilvering (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s actually really interesting to learn and changes how I see many drafts. I’ll keep that in mind a lot more when writing since I kind of thought if something was notable then it would always warrant an article.
 * I noticed that I only have two drafts in the queue now (one person resubmitted one of my drafts themselves so looks like 3 with the search) and that’s pretty liberating. Makes me feel a lot more comfortable about taking a proper break, which I hope to do once the ANI is over. I’m in a better mental state now already. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from KAPITAL COFFEE (08:33, 11 November 2023)
hey how are you I wrote 2000 letters almost I press publish but now I can't see them anywhere please help --KAPITAL COFFEE (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)