User talk:Chalst/archive-4

Archives:
 * User talk:Chalst/archive-1: From start (11 Aug 2004) to 28 Feb 2005
 * User talk:Chalst/archive-2: From 15 Mar 2005 to 28 Jan 2007
 * User talk:Chalst/archive-3: From 10 Apr 2007 to 4 Apr 2016

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rival conceptions of logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernard Bosanquet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Logic and dialectic
Hi Chalst, Pleased to see your much needed logic additions to dialectic. Would you have any references to add to this page? BlueMist (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a few. There is a field of study in mathematical logic concerned with dialog games, and also relevant work in linguistics, which I plan to add. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ga review
Wow, that is quite a technical article to pick for your first review. It has been over two years since I did a Good article review so might be a little rusty, but I was very active at the project before then. Have looked through the article and your review and everything looks good. I didn't really like the bulleted list in the lead either when I first saw it, but as long as it summarises the article then it is fine for GA purposes. In hindsight I think it might even be the best way to present such information. The length of the lead is also not an issue. I looked at the pictures to make sure they were free and they were all uploaded by the nominator so no issues there.

As far as well-written I generally base this on how understandable the article is to me. Usually confusing sentences are just not that well written (if I find myself reading the same sentence over again and still not sure what it is trying to say I will usually point it out). If the confusion arises more from not understanding the general concepts then some leeway should be offered, but it is fair enough to ask for an attempt at explaining things better to a lay person. Articles should be writeen so an average person can follow them (even if they have to jump through a few wikilinks).

I am assuming you checked some of the references. I usually focus on ones that support controversial or potentially challangeable statements (these must be sourced) and maybe a few other random ones if there are not many of those. The citation style here is different than on many other articles, but as long as it is clear what references what then that is not an issue. It also pays to check for close paraphrasing in the references you check, even though you may have run it through an automatic copyvio checking process.

Overall I think the way you have conducted the review is perfectly fine. Any specific questions ping or drop a note at my talk page. Cheers AIR corn (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Charles, just noticed you were back editing again ;-) Paul August &#9742; 14:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For which many thanks. :) Vaughan Pratt (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inference, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abduction, Deduction and Induction. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Hypergraph grammar) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hypergraph grammar, Chalst!

Wikipedia editor Slashme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice to see useful articles on New Page Review!"

To reply, leave a comment on Slashme's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Slashme (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roger Salmon (banker)


The article Roger Salmon (banker) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. TopCipher (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Truth Revert
Thanks for your message. No problem with sources but the source you used seemed to be unreliable because it was a Q & A website and you used an aggregate from this source to support your argument. This aggregate also seemed to be original research (not allowed in Wikipedia) rather than a direct citation. Robynthehode (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Logic task/to do
Template:Logic task/to do has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Definitions of mindfulness


The article Definitions of mindfulness has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This article is a POV fork of Mindfulness: see WP:DEL5. Redirecting to Mindfulness would be an acceptable alternative to deletion."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Biogeographist (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John MacFarlane (philosopher)


The article John MacFarlane (philosopher) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of John Yates (Culadasa) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Yates (Culadasa) 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 Articles for deletion/John Yates (Culadasa) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Logical induction for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Logical induction 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 Articles for deletion/Logical induction until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from the Portals WikiProject...
You are invited to join the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system...

The Portals WikiProject was rebooted 9 days ago, and is going strong. Fifty-two editors have joined so far, with more joining daily.

We're having a blast, and excitement is high...

Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals.

In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished one so far, with more to come.

Discussions are underway about how to upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be.

There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too) on the WikiProject page.

With more to come.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    &mdash; The Transhumanist   03:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Jan Łukasiewicz
Hello, Chalst! With due respect, I undid part of your recent edit to the article, the part about his being ethnicly Polish. I did so because it was irrelevant to his life story, as would be the fact of his having been delivered as an infant by cesarian section. The user who convinced you to include ethnicity had, I'm sure, their own reasons for their suggestion, but I doubt those reasons are in accordance with the goals and standards of WP. The fact that Łukasiewicz was a Roman Catholic should allay any confusion that he might have been Jewish or some non-Polish ethnicity, should anyone care to wonder. It simply requires reading further into the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Other bios, e.g., Alfred Tarski, include mention of ethnicity, but I have no strong feelings about including this information in the article. In fact, we can omit mention of his birthplace, since it is the infobox. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * His ethnicity was not much of a factor in his life and career. I'll be looking at the Tarski article soon. There has been some activity on WP in the direction of calling Poles an "ethnoreligious group". I suspect the edit to be connected to that ethnic parsing.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: OAbot
What do you mean with "generating many pages"? I'm not aware of any page creations. Anyway, if you want more edits to be run automatically and flagged as bot, I suggest that you propose it at Wikipedia talk:OABOT. Thanks, Nemo 12:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. There's sadly no way to edit M pages with N < M edits. Some people requested that such edits be individually vetted by a human and performed manually, so that's what I'm doing. I'd of course be happy to codify a process and run a bot for it if there's demand, but that depends on consensus. Not only bots tend to be less annoying, as you note, but they can also ensure a more consistent quality level for their edits. The main discussion page for the topic is Wikipedia talk:OABOT. --Nemo 13:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That section is traditionally about AWB, pywikibot and so on. --Nemo 06:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer them to be marked as minor edits? I've got contrasting opinions on the matter, but if you feel it would help you substantially I think your request carries more weight and I can reopen the discussion. Thanks, Nemo 08:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

Ethereum
Charles Stewart: Following up here to see if you are able to review the quote in the The New Yorker article we discussed at Talk:Ethereum? No problem if you're busy or prefer not to, I just wanted to check in case. Thank you! AlexLewis13 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I've read the article and it supports what you want to say, but I want to include some additional material from the article when I do. I won't be too long: days rather than weeks. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! AlexLewis13 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Stupid templates
You might try using the edition parameter as in "|edition = Hardcover". There is a lot of detail at. Happy editing. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thank you very much! I should not say "stupid", but I do find the templates frustrating, even as a Bibtex user of 30 years. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I feel your pain. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPM listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPM. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WPM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Kurt Gödel, and list of german mathematicians
Dear Chalst, perhaps i did not know the rules of the English language wikipedia concerning nationalities of persons. In the German language wikipedia (my home) Gödel is attributed Austrian. I think this is justified, at least in the german language wikipedia: In the decisive years of his life and work, he was in fact citizen of Austria, and when he proved his incompleteness theorems he lived and worked in Vienna, Austria. However, i do not think it is justified to attribute him to germany. The motive why i write to you is to ask you: Could you please be so kind and have a critical look over my contributions to the talk page of list of German mathematicians? Thank you.

(Falls Deine Deutschkenntnisse besser sind als meine Englischkenntnisse: Lieber Chalst, wahrscheinlich wusste ich zu wenig über die Regeln der englischsprachigen Wikipedia bezüglich der Zuordnung von Personen zu Nationalitäten. In meiner deutschsprachigen Heim-Wikipedia wird Gödel als Österreicher bezeichnet. Ich finde, dass das durchaus berechtigt ist, zumindest bezüglich der deutschsprachigen Wiki-Regeln. In der Lebensphase, in der er seine größten Werke verfasste, war er österreichischer Staatsbürger, und als er seine Unvollständigkeitssätze bewies, lebte und arbeitete er in Wien. Seine Zuordnung zur list of German mathematicians halte ich aber für unberechtigt, die Nazis haben den Mörder seines akademischen Lehrers Moritz Schlick 1/2 Jahr nach dem "Anschluss" und nach nur 2 Jahren Haft entlassen, die Nazis haben Gödel wegen seines Doktorvaters Hans Hahn bedrängt, er war den größten Teil der Zeit seiner deutschen Staatsbürgerschaft in den USA und nahm ca. 1947 die US-Staatsbürgerschaft an. Das klingt für mich nicht danach, dass er gerne in einer Liste von deutschen Mathematikern erschienen wäre. Der eigentliche Grund, dass ich Dich anspreche, ist aber dieser: Könntest Du bitte mal kritisch über meine Beiträge zur Talk-Seite dieser Liste schauen? Ich glaube Du bist unverdächtig, meine Anmerkungen durchzuwinken so wie manche deutsche Wikipedia-Sichter die Edits von Neulingen. Das wäre echt nett, vielen Dank im Voraus.)   --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * thank Your for Your answer on my talk page.--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This exchange has gotten me a little curious. In what sense was Goedel ever "German"? At some level I don't care that much; I think way too much effort is expended on these nationality issues in bios of people whose work had nothing to do with their nationality. But I'm curious because if you'd asked me for Goedel's nationality before he took American citizenship, I probably would have said "German", but now that I see these exchanges I can't think of any basis for that other than pan-Germanism. --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * When Hitler annexed Czechoslavakia, its German-speaking citizens became German citizens. This is how Gödel acquired his third nationality. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Charles. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

George Soros
He went to LSE - that's what the sources say. I received a post-grade degree because of my studies at LSE, no matter who officially gave it, I was a student at LSE, not UL. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I quite agree. It was who reverted my partial reversion of his edit that changed the infobox from showing LSE as his place of education. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just agreeing. I've now reverted and also replied in your section. He's done this for several other articles. Doug Weller  talk 13:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cross-dock
The article has been improved with the comments received. It is far better than what exists and it is time we publish the article and replace the existing. Can you pls facilitate this?

Johnjvogt (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

SNCC
I think you may have misread the six edits you reversed. These did not actually remove any material from the article. They split paragraphs,ManfredHugh (talk)
 * That is exactly what I did. The matter has already been sorted out. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1019461180&oldid=1019460156#IPv6_stealth_edits_removing_well-sourced_claims &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Allied Academies
You are requested to participate on debate of Articles for deletion/Allied Academies and add additional discussion categories. Applus2021 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

about discussion of large prime number
I read your suggestion. I thought it was a convenient place for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to have a discussion, as the discussion spans several pages. thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you want to start that discussion? I don't care about where the discussion takes place provided it isn't mainly on the AfD, but it would be better to have the discussion either on the project page or one article talk page, not spread over several pages. If you start the discussion, I'll close the one I started, otherwise I can advertise it on the project page. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cross-docking
Hello, Chalst. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cross-docking, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Book of Mormon&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Chimpanzee&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 01:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Robert Lanza&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Logical reasoning
Thanks for mentioning me on the Logic page. I just spotted Logical reasoning, which though an old article is odd. Is there any other kind of reasoning? Peter Damian (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - That article has rather serious issues: it's describing Peircean epistemology and passing it off as the one true perspective on the constitution of logical inference. I think, though, there is non-logical reasoning; consider an example, slightly adapted from one due to Alasdair Macintyre:
 * Four minutes ago, I put the kettle on the stove. Now it is whistling. That means the water is boiling.
 * You can say this is an enthymeme in need of logical explication, but I think any attempt to find an formal analog is going to result in a rendering that is less convincing than the informal inference. Even more deadly to the thesis that there is a hidden logical form to the inference is that there are several incompatible ways of going about trying to recast it as a logical inference, and if there is general method for determining which is the 'right' analysis, I have not heard of it. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks. but does pierce use the term 'logical reasoning'? couldn't find one. Peter Damian (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - not that I know of and I would be surprised if he did, but I am no Peirce expert. If you are wondering if something should be done about that article, I agree that it should. The content there is pretty much redundant: I think pretty much all that material exists in other articles. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks,. My first barnstar in my something like 17 years of editing. Either I am not as competent an editor as I hope/believe, or barnstars are not distributed according to merit :) &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you were a competent editor, so I was surprised that this was the first barnstar. In fact, your answer in Talk:Indecomposability (intuitionistic logic) shows that you are a valuable editor. Editors familiar with constructive mathematics are valuable.--SilverMatsu (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Israel lobby in the uk
Do you think we should propose this article for deletion155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a problematic article, to be sure, but there are specific solutions available: (i) a more neutral title, and (ii) rebalance the WP:DUE issues in the sourcing. I don't think deletion policy is the right tool for this problem. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Naturopathy&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Inter-universal Teichmüller theory&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Metaphosphorous acid
Hello, Chalst. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Metaphosphorous acid, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini
Hello! Thanks for the feedback on the draft. In Italian there is this source: https://youtube.fandom.com/it/wiki/RinoTheNicePlayer

While in English there is this source: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Salvatore_Ambrosini Nonna Angelina (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * On AfD, neither of these sources are going to help much. You need WP:BASIC-quality sources to pass AfD, preferably at least three of them. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Are three famous articles all over Italy that talk about Salvatore Ambrosini good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonna Angelina (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Salvatore Ambrosini appeared in these newspapers: https://www.ilmattino.it/spettacoli/televisione/segre_prima_webserie_degli_studenti_che_racconta_la_storia_di_napoli-6373137.html

https://www.napolitoday.it/cultura/salvatore-ambrosini-video-imitazioni-voci-youtube.html

https://www.napolitoday.it/eventi/conseguenze-della-quarantena-serie-web-famiglia-ambrosini.html

https://www.melitonline.net/giornale/mugnano-le-mille-voci-di-salvatore-ambrosini-giovane-youtuber/

https://www.positanonews.it/2021/10/il-castello-la-webserie-salvatore-ambrosini-nei-panni-di-andrea-dungheria/3527256/

https://www.terranostranews.it/2021/09/21/mugnano-il-talento-di-salvatore-ambrosini-ha-catturato-lattenzione-di-tutti-sui-social/

https://www.lasettimanatv.it/il-liceo-segre-e-la-webserie-creata-dagli-studenti/

https://www.zazoom.it/news-notizia/post/454070/2021-12-05--salvatore-ambrosini-volto-per-mille-voci--15-15/

https://fai.informazione.it/8EF3F55F-4861-47DF-92CE-C4A256485217/Salvatore-Ambrosini-la-voce-di-Topolino

https://www.altranotizia.com/mugnano-due-giovanissimi-nella-squadra-di-romina-imperatore/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonna Angelina (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If all your best sources are in Italian, then why don't you start by creating a draft in the Italian WP? You're welcome to try to work on your draft here on English Wikipedia, but I am not going to put effort into trying to evaluate sources in a language I don't understand on a bio in a class that doesn't fare well on AfD. You might get lucky and find an AfC reviewer who has the competence to evaluate Italian sources without great effort, but the odds are against you. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thank you for taking a look at the Aglet (app) article. If there's anything I can personally do to make the article more fit for review let me know.

Wbrandon-aglet (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC) 

Comment at Articles for deletion/Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992)
Hi - I think better to respond here, rather than continue at AfD. I was highlighting issues raised during the last AFC backlog drive. FWIW, I personally do not think draftification should be option at AfD; at AfD a topic is determined either notable or not (including no consensus given this defaults to notable). Content is essentially irrelevant there; so why create further backlogs for something already determined to be notable? At the same time, it appears to happen relatively infrequently, which is how I would hope things stay, so in practice I'm not outright opposed, but I think wariness is appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, draftification is an option as a matter of well-established policy upheld at DRV (it's listed at WP:ATD), and there are plenty of reasons to delete articles on notable topics as well as salvage content attached to articles on non-notable topics, so the idea that AfD boils down to determining notability is an oversimplification. I've only recently become active at AfC and perhaps my attitude will change, but there was no real pushback when I said what I was doing on the AfC talkpage a week or so ago. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think (?) we actually disagree on any substantial point here! :) Personally it is my least supported outcome at AfD since I think it is deferred decision that moves away from at least multiple-editor decision-making (what happens at AfD) to single-editor decision making (what happens at AfC). Your earlier comment about AfC running smoother, I suspect has a lot to do with that difference.  I would differentiate outcomes at DRV from AfD (the nature of appeals outcomes requires more flexibility in decision-making).  Also, a TNT outcome at AfD of a notable topic would in my mind probably of necessity produce some form of draftication since any editor will inevitably need to see what existed before if the article is recreated. I drop in and out of AfC, perhaps see you there. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall, I think we agree much more often than we disagree. Draftification is often problematic: if there is content that is salvageable, it's not ideal that it leaves articlespace, but then, all the WP:ATD outcomes actually have this effect upon close (closers do not, e.g., actually perform merges, but do exactly what they would do on a redirect outcome). It also puts the six-month ticking time bomb on content. I have been adding AFCH comments explaining what I think should happen to AfD-draftified articles on their entering AfC since I became active at AfC, although I've taken none all the way to AfC review as yet. As I say, my attitude might change. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft created
Hi, sorry for the posting at Deletion review/Log/2022 January 2. Didn't know it was not allowed on the wiki. I have created a draft with the tips SmokeyJoe mentioned from my own research on the net. Please check it here:- Draft:Mandar Agashe. Hope it's fine else you can delete it. Thanks 106.220.138.16 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the draft. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks so much! Should I expand the page with some of the sources I’ve come across on net or should I leave it as a stub? and wait for the article to be reviewed first? There are some book sources that can also be added. 2405:201:1006:E03A:15CE:65C:EE3E:3464 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say the draft looks to be in good shape: too many sources can, paradoxically, increase the length of time before someone actually looks properly at the draft because they are deterred by the thought that they will have to go through the all of the sources. Cf. WP:THREE if you are not familiar with it. What's good about the draft as it stands is that all the sources are tied to inline citations. It's worth adding sources if you think they will reduce the risk of the bio being seen as non-notable. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, that’s fine. The expert editors should be able to expand the article. I could find quite a few sources for the subject on a fairly large but poorly written version of the article on way back machine before the article was deleted. You can also check, thanks. bye 2405:201:1006:E03A:E4D5:BDF4:2F67:2AA (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

TFA nomination for Group (mathematics)
I have nominated Group (mathematics) to run as today's featured article for an unspecified date. I included you as a main editor for the article because of your participation in the article's FAR in April/May 2021. Editors may join the discussion for this nomination at Today's featured article/requests/Group (mathematics). Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yang Liu (computer scientist) (January 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Yang Liu (computer scientist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Yang Liu (computer scientist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Yang_Liu_(computer_scientist) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MurielMary&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Yang_Liu_(computer_scientist) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)