User talk:Perryprog/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Perryprog! Thank you for your contributions. I am ToBeFree and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Hey
Hi Perryprog, It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. Also, don't forget to press the sign button. Happy editing, -- It's  Boothsift  01:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'm sorry. I'm used to Twinkle doing it for me. Perryprog (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. Anyways, just press the thing next to the infinity next time. Cheers-- It's  Boothsift  01:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Toni Pressley
Thanks for reverting the edits on Toni Pressley. The edits were not good faith edits. They were gossip about Pressley's sexuality and personal life. Thank you very much for reverting it.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm not familiar with many sports so I always try to assume good faith in the case that an edit was actually attempting to be serious. In the case that it's completely obvious someone is trying to defame or vandalise a WP:BLP then I assume bad faith. Cheers! Perryprog (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Kind Sir
Do not revert my scientifically proven edit, it is not a joke nor is it vandalism. This website is about distributing correct Information so start treating it that way. Royalwonder (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Perryprog. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3APerryprog enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! The SandDoctor Talk 08:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * Great, thank you so much! Perryprog (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

How's it going?
Hi, I haven't seen you on IRC for the last few days, I remember just a few weeks ago when you were first getting started. One of the users posted this link for you, don't know whether you spotted it. Hope you're enjoying Wikipedia! Let me know if you have any issues, RhinosF1 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey Rhino! I sent a message on IRC but I doubt many people saw it. My winter break ended recently so I have basically no free time with school. If I get a chance I’ll hop on. Anywho, what’s the context of that image? I’m not sure if it’s something I should know (besides that it’s Snape of course). Thanks a bunch for the message! Perryprog (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  perryprog: https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--j1I9qHWc--/t_Preview/b_rgb:ffffff,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1476802457/production/designs/741037_1.jpg
 * 21:45 *Praxidicae (What was on IRC( I can't really tell why he pinged you)) RhinosF1 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird, I don't recognize the username. Again, thanks. Perryprog (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Janet Evanovich
The previous edit (Jan 4, 2019) removed the list of collections on that page (that I put in). Also in the Anthology collection, the previous edit changed The Plot Thickens and The Last Peep to appear as two different books. However, The Plot Thickens contains The Last Peep. Most are from the author's site, but I can site GoodReads.com as well. CVReads —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi CVReads. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you (3 months?!). Thanks for clarifying, and a way bigger thank you for all the work you've done on Wikipedia. Cheers! Perryprog (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Van Wolferen
Could you please return the edit, tried to fix Van Wolferens page of unsourced flattery and to update his current occupation (kinda weird that my fix literally immediately got removed before I could improve, but not the original extremely biased and not up to date article?? Whats going on?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:3678:1:8502:A20:3A64:5DB1 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reaching out! I reverted your edit because it removed a fair bit of text—as well as some citations—without an adequate explanation ("updated his bio to current occupation"). Additionally, the text you added was unsourced, something that is very important for any biography of a living person. Finally, the actual content of what you added appears to be from a non-neutral point of view; if you do want to make claims such as the ones you mentioned, then it's important to present it in a neutral way with plenty of reliable sources. Perryprog (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didnt get time do do so. The current article is filled with unsubstantiated claims and false links. We are dealing with an active conspiracy theorist, which is not hard to prove; proper newspapers are filled with explanations (https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/wie-en-wat-zit-er-achter-het-blad-gezond-verstand-met-de-echte-waarheid-over-corona-en-9-11~bd35de5d/). The old text never adhered to Wiki standards, I tried to fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:3678:1:8502:A20:3A64:5DB1 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, thanks for the link. That article would be a good source, and appears worthy of inclusion in the article to me. I've gone ahead and cleaned up the citations as they were a bit inconsistent and had some bad links, which may help a bit. I think it's worth noting that even the article you linked corroborates that Van Wolferen's writings for Japan have been influential ("His book The Enigma of Japanese Power had a worldwide influence on the image of the country."), so there's no strong reason to delete that part in my opinion. I think that under the "Political views since the 1990s" header it would be fine to have a paragraph on what was published in that article, but it must be sourced. Wikipedia has very strict polices on biographies of a living person, like I mentioned earlier. If you need help with Wikipedia's citation system you can let me know, or you can read the guide for citing sources within the visual editor here. Disclaimer: I don't speak Dutch, and am relying on Google Translate to help me out with some of those Dutch-only articles. Perryprog (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Maraş Massacre article
Hello, I could not figure out how to respond to the discussion, that is why there has been no response from my side. I agree to the compromise of using the term "Alevis" instead of Turks and Kurds, because although Kurds were targeted, Alevi Turks, leftist Turks were also targeted in this massacre. Simply leaving out the Turkish victims is very tasteless. You have researched yourself and found out (I believe) that the victims have usually been refered to as Alevis, although there are also sources that say Kurds have been the victims. And like Semsuri mentions, the majority of Kurds in Maras might have been Kurds (I don't know that, I haven't seen a source) but that doesn't mean there haven't been Turkish victims. Most Alevis in Turkey are ethnically not Kurdish.

https://anfenglishmobile.com/news/victims-of-the-maras-massacre-commemorated-40253 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/forty-years-maras-massacre

"The targets of the killings were Alevis, Kurds and revolutionaries with official records showing 111 people killed, although others put the death toll closer to 500."

I know it has no concrete weight but I do know that Turkish people were also killed. I am from Maras myself (which I can prove) and know the stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandorfehervari (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Farm-Fresh eye.png I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.CC ; busy with real life stuff for the moment and can't reply currently. Perryprog (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * as the AN3 report has been archived is everything good now? While it looks like the article is currently matching the Grey Wolves article regarding the mention of ethnicity. The sources mentioned in the AN3 (linked earlier) comment by seemed sufficient for me, and I would personally be OK if those were used as a reference to support the claim that both Turkish and Kurdish Alevis were targeted by the attack. Perryprog (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can support that. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree to the current compromise. Best regards. Nandorfehervari (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter Kalikow Edit
Perryprog,

I have been attempting to edit the Peter Kalikow wiki page but I guess you have issues with my edit. I currently work for Mr. Kalikow so I have first hand information. How do we work this out?

Thanks,

Raincheck10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raincheck10 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reaching out! Generally speaking, if you have any external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). You can read more at conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. The general things you need to be aware of are:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
 * And finally, in the case that you are a paid editor, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure. From looking at the edits you've made, they seem to be from a fairly neutral point of view, although I would advise against removing any content without a reason in the edit summary. (For example, I noticed you removed several references without an explanation, which could be constituted as disruptive editing.) I think that just about covers it—the main takeaway should just be to responsibly disclose any conflicts of interest as stated in the disclose bullet point above, as well as a paid-contribution disclosure if necessary. Thanks, and happy editing. Perryprog (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Arcosanti
There was a reason given. You might have glossed over it, 'Ugly HDR removed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.204.131 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologizes—I'll follow up on the talk page. Perryprog (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes
Hi Perryprog, I don't know if any of the pages you watch are under wp:pending changes, but I think you are ready for the reviewer flag, so I have set it on your account.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, thank you, and great timing. A few of the pages I lurk on have recently moved to pending changes, and I'm meaning to request the same for a few others. Cheers! Perryprog (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-warring at Economy of Bangladesh
In this edit you switched Bangladesh's nominal GDP (2020 est.) from $317B to $348B. In subsequent edits a few days later, such as this one and another one, you switched it from $348B to $317B. Every time, your edit summary has been along the lines of "doesn't reflect provided sources". According to the cited source the smaller figure is the estimate of 2019 GDP, the larger one is of 2020 GDP (both estimates made in October 2019). If we're labelling it "(2020 est.)" in the article, we should be giving the larger number. The same applies to purchasing power parity GDP, and perhaps other figures.

The article suffers frequent vandalism, so your efforts to counter it are appreciated, but in this case the editors you're reverting seem to be right about half the time. Kindly straighten out the numbers. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh dear. Thank you for letting me know—I must have been sloppy in comparing it with the IMF data. My most recent edit should be correct, as I was pretty thorough in verifying all of the statistics. Again—thank you very much for noticing and notifying me, that's a pretty frustrating thing to have gotten wrong. Perryprog (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , reading through your comment again, I realize that the linked source (and the one you linked) is for the October 2019 set of data. The $317B figure is confusingly the newest estimate from October 2020's set of data, as well as the estimate for 2019 in the October 2019 set of data. It looks like I didn't remember to update the source on my most recent update of the data. I'm going to go through and update that source, as well as triple check that the current figures are correct. Perryprog (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've updated the citation. Even more confusingly, the previous title was listed as "World Economic Outlook Database, October 2020" despite pointing towards the October 2019 data. I'm going to intentionally wait a bit before checking the rest of the data/citation as I want to make sure I don't further confound myself :). Perryprog (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

my change to the PEAR web page
yes, thanks ... in a separate edit i provided an edit but was unable to insert a footnote ... perhaps you can do this for me? Thanks Jeff Scargle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:CA80:B940:29C7:E65A:A29D:42C3 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff. I can't add the footnote for you as I don't know what the source for the claim was. If you want, you can read through Help:Referencing for beginners which will show the necessary steps to take for how to add a footnote and reference. The longer version of that can be seen at Citing sources, but it's much longer. Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy new year! Perryprog (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Also, side note—I'm heading off to bed so if you would like a more timely answer you can check out the Teahouse or our live help chat.) Perryprog (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Attorney General page-
Dearest Perryprog,

I humbly request that you allow this edit to the SDAG page. This claim is is proven by the multiple counties, sheriffs, and lawyers involved in this case. Unless indicted with this recent tragedy, this information can be confirmed. I can source a news article or even the crash report if necessary.

Thank you for the time, A citizen who deeply disapproves of pedestrian fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B122:4497:E481:32D1:80AE:AAC4 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reaching out. I do realize I reverted your edit as improper humor, as I had assumed your intent was for that addition to come across as a joke—I see now that that's not the case. However, there are still issues with the edit you made. It pretty much boils down to 1) not being worded neutrally, and 2) being unsourced. There's a few other details that are still important, but those two details are the principal reasons that the edit wasn't quite appropriate. Perryprog (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. Have a good weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B122:4497:E481:32D1:80AE:AAC4 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very impressive that you were able to read my comment before posting it ;). I've still replied to your original comment just in case you still find it helpful. Perryprog (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jacques Faix Draft
In the comment you thought that book was written by the subject that is not true please check again and most importantly if that is the only problem please accept my draft Jacques Faix (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , ah I'm so sorry—that certainly explains how it was published (and I assume written) 70 years after their death :). Regarding the draft itself, I think it still needs some work—there's still some copyediting that needs to be done, and I think some more sources demonstrating their notability could do some good. See here for more detail on what that means. Perryprog (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Great thank you i have resubmited the draft for review once again and will improve it as much as i can have a good week Jacques Faix (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence
Thank you for reviewing the proposed Ethical Artificial Intelligence. I have been pondering over your suggestion of including the draft in ethics in artificial intelligence. The debate is whether the field of ethical artificial intelligence should be a separate topic from artificial intelligence. The current page for artificial intelligence does not include adequate sections on ethical artificial intelligence and ethical machine learning. If they were included, it would not be necessary to create a new page for it. The page for ethics in artificial intelligence discusses the topic more from a public debate than a field of study. One possibility would be to create a page Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to address the field of study more appropriately. I would like to confer more with experts in this field. Thank you for exercising patience with your review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi—sorry for the bit of a delayed response. I think it should be OK to include it on ethics of artificial intelligence in a section focused on how the field looks from an occupational point-of-view. It looks like it's a pretty active article, so I would recommend proposing the changes you might wish to make on its talk page: Talk:Ethics of artificial intelligence. That way you can get some feedback from some other experienced editors who likely are also already familiar with the field, and you can then work from there. Perryprog (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ,thank you for the suggestion. I will propose that a section of ethical artificial intelligence be merged into the ethics of artificial intelligence page.  Thank you for your review. NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

Request on 12:21:32, 21 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Rathoredeepa
Hey I had submitted draft Mangesh Amale it says this references are not valid Kindly guide me what kind of references are valid

is newspaper articles valid for this ?

Rathoredeepa (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi, I'm a bit busy so I can't give you a full response just right now, but I would recommend reading both this guide and the bit on that page proceeded with "comment" where I described the current issues with the sources listed. If you need something a bit more in-depth, there's further links in the decline reason on your draft as well. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Perryprog (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , and yes—newspaper articles are (usually) a good choice, as long as they show significant coverage of the person in question. Perryprog (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

undid my change
Hello Perry, You just undid my change in which I have added a deletion tag for a draft page Draft:Mangesh Amale as it contains personal information in it. The author has uploaded a picture of Identity card of the subject can i know why my edit was removed. Peerzada Iflaq (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi, it looks like I missed that that file was an identity card (I never looked closely at it), but it's since been removed. The deletion tag you marked the page with was db-nonsense which is for pages made up only of literal gibberish, so it didn't make sense in this situation. In the future you should request deletion of the file itself with the relevant criterium, as the draft didn't seem to have any issues. You might also want to read through the oversight page as well. Perryprog (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After seeing the seriousness of the situation I opted for this option. There was nothing else in my mind to delete this page. Thankyou for your assistance. Peerzada Iflaq (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see—obviously because I overlooked the image I don't actually know what it contained, but tagging it as G1 will likely not have helped in this situation. It likely would have been better to email the oversight team (link is from the top of here) or join and request help there, as that way you will get an immediate response from editors who will know how to handle the situation, regardless of any potential complicating factors. Perryprog (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Invisible spaces
Hello, Perryprog, and thanks for your contributions. Please avoid making changes like this one at Template:First article which add (or subtract) spaces to the wikicode while having no effect on the rendered page; this may be a violation of MOS:VAR. Every change should improve the page in some way, and this one did not. By the same token, undoing your change would not improve it either, which is why I'm not reverting, but please avoid this sort of change in the future. (I get your point about "consistency" in the edit summary; my slight ocd-ness tends to agree with you; you may be thinking about MOS:ARTCON, but afaict that applies only to article content, i.e., only stuff you can actually see on the page when you read the article, and not to spaces in the code that only editors can see; ymmv.) By the way: a similar restriction applies to citations, in regard to embedded spaces, capitalization, and param aliases that do not change how the reference is rendered; see WP:CITEVAR for details. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeahhhh that was a bit too frivolous of a change even for me, and I definitely shouldn't have made it. I sometimes have issues with impulse control when it gets a bit late in the day (and especially after a particularly long one), and I think this was one of those times. Regarding the citation thing, that was a different circumstance—as I've recently been reviewing AfC submissions, I was doing a bit of experimentation with differing userscripts for handling references (especially bare or poorly made ones). It turns out ProveIt's "Normalize everything" button does some questionable changes that are often soon undone by Citation bot or reFill. In other words—those cosmetic edits were purely accidental due to a bit of oversight on my part. I've been careful to avoid making those types of edits since I noticed.  Anyway—thank you for taking the time to leave me a notice regarding these. This sort of wake-up call is very helpful for me, and I'll make sure to double-check I'm not being too impetuous before hitting the good ol' minor edit and publish button. Perryprog (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this source credible?
You declined my article, "Jews in Bukovina" because the sources weren't credible. I used some Jewish history websites, and I want to know if you think the website below is fine to use.

https://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Bucovina

Thank you! Bulgariansoviet1878 (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey! I just finished the page for Jews in Bukovina. I added quite a few sources so I hope that this will pass the test the second time. Again, thank you for informing me! Bulgariansoviet1878 (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh shoot, I'm so sorry I missed this—I'm about to go to bed so I can't look at anything in depth just right now, but I would bet from the URL it's not a great choice. Encyclopedia's are reference sources (specifically, tertiary sources), and in most situations they shouldn't be cited directly. That would mean Encyclopedia Britannica would also probably be a poor choice—however, if the Britannica article itself has sources, you can use those as long as they're still relevant to what you're trying to show. Hopefully this helps; if you need, I can elaborate more tomorrow. Perryprog (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's fine! I'll look for the sources inside the article, good thing that I only used it a little bit. Thank you! Bulgariansoviet1878 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

He undo your edit
Hello, I saw the same person that you undo because of section blanking, undo yours meaning that he undo your revision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Morrow (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorted; thank you. Perryprog (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your note
OS? Oversight requests? For edits trapped in the filter? I don't think I know how to do that, but I there's a lot I don't know about filters--I just discovered something new in there, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , heh, no. Part of the initial wave of tiktok stuff was people creating userpages or drafts with a metric heckload of PII of minors. (Sorry, should have clarified that.) (Also, can you oversight edits stuck in the filter?) Perryprog (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi Perry,I was just joking by changing economy of Pakistan so sorry if u mind Tayyab Ahmad67 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I can't really think of a non-dour way of putting this, but articles on Wikipedia are intended to be serious. Remember—readers are often coming to Wikipedia to use it as a reference on certain statistics, so it's important that we keep them as accurate as possible and to ensure that any statements always reflect what the provided sources say. Even small changes can have a significant impact, as if one statement doesn't match what its source says, it throws doubt onto the accuracy of the entire article. Anyway—thank you for the apology, and happy editing! Perryprog (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft Samuel Ridwan
Please look into my draft for me cause my source is very trusted Campusfilla (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi. The reason I said the africawish link didn't appear to be a reliable source is because I can find almost nothing about it. Their website seems half completed (see their contact page for example—it looks to be all placeholder numbers and details), and the current stories on the front-page of their site give me very little confidence that they are more than just a tabloid. (For example, "Two Slay Queens undresses each other and trade blows over a Man naked [Watch Video]", and "Sad as jealousy woman poisons best friend over a job promotion".) And regardless—even if it is a reliable source, it's still not enough. In order for an article on a person to exist, there needs to be significant coverage of the person, in—multiple—reliable secondary sources, that are independent of the topic. (See WP:NBIO.) There's some further links to some helpful resources about what this all means in the decline text on the draft; I'd especially recommend reading Your First Article and Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Perryprog (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, ! Always happy to help :). Perryprog (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rereview
Hi ;) Can u rereview my draft please, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Park_Cheon-guk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isk0602 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ; I typically don't re-review drafts I've declined, but I can tell you it's still not likely to be accepted. The first two sources seem to be partially or fully copied from a press released (see WP:SPONSORED) and the third source seems to mention the subject only in passing. I would highly recommend reviewing Your First Article and some common notability mistakes before resubmitting. (Also, note that I don't speak Korean so I had to rely on Google Translate, so my assessment of those sources may not be perfectly accurate.) Perryprog (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks for reverting those edits. Not sure how it happened! Dz3 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's far too easy to confuse Dr. Tags, the famous Anthropologist, with WikiProject Tags Junior. Perryprog (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Seb Grey
Keith Totp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeeditors (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm not sure what you're asking me—do you need assistance with the drafts you recently submitted? Perryprog (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi from Mel re: wikiLove
Thank you so much for offering to help with my wikiLove efforts! Is swapping messages on talk pages the best way to continue convo? DrMel (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no problem—and yes, talk pages are the place to do that. Perryprog (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Great! Take a look at the 20 sec film clip? We had a 3 hour wikiBlind Zoom gathering on wikipedia day so we could start gathering more Thank Yous! One of the biggest missing pieces here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMel (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's awesome! One of the areas I've been working in (albeit slowly, due to school) is improving some of the documentation on how to use wikitext in areas such as talk pages, in a way that doesn't hinder accessibility, especially with regard to screen readers, so it's really great to hear that WikiBlind is still active. Perryprog (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Randy Bryce
Thanks for dealing with the socking there! Marquardtika (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! :) Perryprog (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk about the article
Hello. The article "Draft: Evgeny Yurievich Ilnitsky" has reliable sources. Are there any chances to add it to the main space? https://www.zvezdi.ru/stars/2974-shot.html https://real-rap.ru/pokinuli-nas-slishkom-rano-7-reperov-ushedshih-iz-zhizni-na-pike-slavy/ https://www.interfax.ru/amp/591627 http://rhyme.ru/shot-uslyshal-rep-reshil-poprobovat-sdelat-svoyo-2011/ http://rhyme.ru/intervyu-s-shotom-2014/ https://news-r.ru/amp/news/culture/147093/ https://www.intermedia.ru/news/253786 https://kuntsevo-gazeta.ru/gruppa-ulicy-vystupit-v-kuncevo https://ftimes.ru/330789-klub-27-chto-eto-spisok-muzykantov-pesnya-pamyati.html 2A02:2698:24:42AA:C882:6DFF:FE96:D (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi—I can't take a look quite right now, but you can submit the the draft for re-review by clicking the blue "resubmit" button. Generally speaking, the next thing you'll likely need to do is make sure you demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC. You might also want to check this page, which lists some common mistakes when it comes to that step. Perryprog (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perryprog The article has been resubmitted to watch, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2698:24:42aa:e8f0:9b7b:28a0:9583 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does appear to be resubmitted. Perryprog (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Perryprog I apologize if I interfered. Tell me, be so kind. This article is on how much chance is evaluated for consent in a public place? there are, after all, speeches, mass media about death and other records of serious sites. I will be glad when you have time to tell me 2A02:2698:22:A75F:CD8E:DA91:411:949C (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Side note: I'm not an administrator—I'm just as much an editor as you are.) I'm not quite sure what you're asking; is there a specific article that you're referring to that you didn't link? Perryprog (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Funny
Hello, there. I saw you thanked me for reviewing Draft:National general status working group in Canada. Firstly, you're welcome. Secondly, I saw that you thanked me a good while afterwards, but when I saw it, I was still on the loading screen. It took me a good ten minutes just for the thing to load! I have never encountered an article that long before, and I think my computer had a stroke or something. Anyways, excuse my rambling and have a nice day, alright? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 00:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think I've ever seen an article that long before either (although I do recall one particularly bad zalgo text bomb). I mean, 2.7 times longer than opinion polling for the 2021 German federal election is insane! (That's possibly due to the wikitext required for all that special formatting, but eh.) Anyway—thanks for the message, and stay safe out there :). Perryprog (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Fatal Trigger
Hello, I ask that the draft of the Draft: Fatal Trigger be moved to the main article because it already has enough references and already has all the coherent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moniiquedecastro (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi—I typically avoid reviewing the same draft multiple times, so you'll just have to be patient for someone else to review it. Perryprog (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I see that the article may already be on the main page. Moniiquedecastro (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what you mean. Draft:Fatal Trigger is still a draft, which means it isn't an actual "article" yet. (See this page for what that means.) Perryprog (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that the article may already be in the encyclopedia, the sketch already has enough references to be redirected to the main article. Moniiquedecastro (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ah, I see—I think that's just language confusion, then. Regardless: currently you just need to wait for a reviewer to either accept or decline the draft. If it's accepted then the reviewer will move it into the main article area for you, otherwise you can continue working on it. 23:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course thank you, I will continue working on the article. Moniiquedecastro (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
I noticed that you tagged Jadwiga Tyszka with prod blp for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The are: (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this criterion is discrete from the one used after a proper placement of the tag, and fully read Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion via this process. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , yup, I just noticed IMDb links count. I was about to revert my edits. Perryprog (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ...and that the person is dead, as well. Perryprog (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that at first, either :$. Adam9007 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Third Vote
Dear Perryprog, thank you for having evaluated the "Third Vote" article. Following your advise, Section "History" is extended and provided with References [16]-[19] to external reviews of the "Third Vote". Yours very truly, Nikogosyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikogosyan (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think the main issues with the draft right now are it's a bit too much of an "essay" than it is an encyclopedic article. I would recommend reading WP:Encyclopedic style to get a better understanding on what this generally means, as there's a lot of useful stuff in there. There were also a few other details brought up on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page, but it was archived so here's a link if you couldn't find it: Hopefully this helps. Please feel free to let me know if need any more help. Happy editing! Perryprog (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick note on Draft:NGC 5582
Thanks for your edits to Draft:NGC 5582.

Do you want to procedural decline this draft? It is semiprotected so anons cannot resubmit. Aasim (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , in general I avoid declining drafts multiple times unless it was disruptively resubmitted (e.g., with clearly no improvement while also being blatantly unsuitable for mainspace). As this wasn't the case, I'd rather let some other reviewer handle it. (Although at this point I think nearly every AfC reviewer has touched it! ;)) Perryprog (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can agree what a mess of a page. I think older declined notices should be collapsed to avoid messing with the scrolling. Aasim (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , traditionally it's uncommon for even three declines to pile up, as typically that indicates the draft is nearing rejection (this almost always happens due to a repeated failure to address previous decline reasons). It's equally uncommon for someone to resubmit a draft despite being rejected. But regardless: it doesn't matter too much in this case. Perryprog (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and collapsed the notices as there are way too many of them. Hopefully the page looks cleaner and is easier to navigate. Aasim (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

concern regarding- "Draft:Manoharpur, jharkhand"
i hritik want to convey you that all the facts and refrences regarding- Draft:Manoharpur, jharkhand are genuine and true up to my knoledge.

manoharpur is a small town in West Singhbhum district, Jharkhand; which does not happend to have its wikipedia page, therefore i as the domicile of this town am trying to add it to wikipedia. also i have added proper references for this town. so i would be grateful if you could please approve this wikipedia page

yours thankful

--Hritikxprasad (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Hritikxprasad
 * , hi—apologizes for the late reply. You've resubmitted the draft for review, so you'll just have to wait until someone either approves or declines it. It's worth noting, though, that it will likely be declined again—Google Searches and links to Google Maps, and links to Wikipedia are all not considered reliable sources. You generally will want references to secondary sources—see WP:NGEO and Your First Article for further info. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Perryprog (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Olympia LePoint
You reverted changes applied referencing poor reference and unbiased notes. 9 additional references were added from sources such as CBS news, huff post and nasa. Those are not poor references. Wikipedia would not let us post a triveglobal url in a reference so we noted the site. Not crazy about thrive either but the site Wikipedia would not let us post on thrive was simply a author page review, no propaganda. I am not related in any way to Olympia. She resides in Northridge CA and I'm a freelance editor near Pittsburgh PA. Objectively see nothing wrong with the edits applied to her wiki site which largely just included notes on her new book release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SigitySym (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi—I'm very tired at the moment so my judgement might be a bit shaky. I'll have to take another look at this later, most likely tomorrow. Perryprog (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. If the changes are unacceptable, no problem, will relay to Olympia.  My last assist for Olympia was 8years ago and seems since that time the wiki rules are beyond me.  It did all read ok to me, didn't pick up on any advertising, similar to her existing content.  I'll happily tap out here though if the work isn't acceptable.  Thanks again (tired here as well). SigitySym (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Third Vote
Dear Perryprog, I think that I have got your point and attempted to make the article shorter, simpler, more encyclopedic and less "essayistic". I thank you for your helpful hints and look forward to getting your evaluation. Yours truly, Nikogosyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikogosyan (talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's great to hear. I think one recommendation might be to make it even shorter, to be honest—while this topic is likely notability enough for an article, it does need to be in a form that a reader can understand. (I might have already recommended this to you, but if not, Make technical articles understandable is worth reading.) For an encyclopedic article, the History and Criticism sections are probably the most helpful to an average reader. The complexity added by the "example" and "comparison" sections is pretty hefty, so one possibility would be just removing it for now . I think that may make it a lot more approachable, especially for reviewers. And for what it's worth, that might also be a completely horrible suggestion. I'm not awake enough to read through it again, but I'll likely be giving it another look at some point. Anyway: hopefully this helps, and happy editing! Perryprog (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

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

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

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

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Not sure what is wrong about adding a legal entity to the list and linking to it?
The edit made to Tourism In Namibia page was not advertisement, it is a government supported entity in tourism that was recently founded. Please advise on how would one link it otherwise? Thanks Soni.nrupesh (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Replying on your talk page. Perryprog (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Third Vote
Dear Perryprog, thank you for valuable comments, which I considered seriously. I removed the section about comparing the Third Vote with other fundamental voting procedures, but retained Section "Example", having maximally simplified it (without this section it can be unclear how the method works). If you think that this section is less important than "History" and "Criticism", it can be moved to the end of the article, but then, I'm afraid, the "Criticism" can be unclear. Now, I am pretty satisfied with the article and grateful for your great help. Yours truly, Nikogosyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikogosyan (talk • contribs) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert of link addition
Hi I was updating the link with the live website. Could you please fix it instead of removing it. Thanks DNMB (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . What relation do you have with the Diversity News Magazine that you keep attempting to link to? Perryprog (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Perryprog could you please update the link for me. Like I say I was updating it from a dead link to a live link. ThanksDNMB (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you added the link on Bobbie Shaw Chance. You were not fixing a dead link. Again, what relation do you have with Diversity News Magazine? Perryprog (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

History of áo dài links
Dear Peryprog i want to replace the dead links with my new articles on the history of ao dai, in addition to these i also add new content, can you tell me what can i do better to can you restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miomia08 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not the place to insert links for the purposes of self promotion. Doing this is very much not permitted. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Perryprog (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Françoise Foliot - Afghanistan - 019.jpg
You mentioned here the photo is taken in 1975, but the file says its from March 2019. Could you update the file with the exact date if the 2019 date is wrong? —  Melofors   TC  03:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , fixed; I think I meant to but forgot. I don't know the exact date—I was comparing it with c:File:Françoise Foliot - Afghanistan 159.jpg for the year. Perryprog (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

LoopUp - Updates to product portfolio and Non-Executive Chairman
Hi Perryprog! You are correct to remove promotional or unsubstantiated content from this article. However, your recent reversions introduced factual inaccuracies which devalue the article as encyclopedic content - specifically, (i) the service that this business offers has changed and so the old wording is no longer accurate, and (ii) the Non-Executive Chairman has changed - in fact, the individual that you reverted to is now deceased. Could you please review your changes to ensure that they are factually correct - the sources listed should confirm that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.79.83 (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct, so thank you for catching that. I would recommend just making the change yourself, however—unless you have a conflict of interest with the subject, there's nothing whatsoever stopping you from making those changes yourself. If you do have a conflict of interest, you can write an edit request on the talk page for LoopUp's article. Let me know if you have any questions on either tasks. Perryprog (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion related question
Hi Perry I read your suggestions and I wanted to verify whether these changes you are suggesting would lead to your approval of this wiki page? Your suggestion is as follows: Comment: Please remove every external link in the body of the draft. Additionally. please note that referencing YouTube is strongly discouraged and in this case is done far more times than should ever be necessary. I would personally recommend removing the entire Videography section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogetu2 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot easily say whether it would definitively lead to the approval of the draft, although it is not likely. A review will typically be on only one issue that needs to be fixed—it would be far, far too much work for a reviewer to have to comprehensively list out every potential issue when there's the presence of another that acts as a "blocker" to acceptance. Hopefully that makes sense, but if not, don't worry—my point is basically that each review decline is often going to focus on only one issue at a time. Perryprog (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay understood, I ask because I was told to add these references and external links, then I was told to add more. Now I'm being asked to remove them all, does this make sense to you? Maybe it highlights some other underlying issue that I am not yet privy too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogetu2 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you were told to add references to reliable sources. There shouldn't be any instance where it was suggested to add external links, as they are very rarely necessary, and essentially never necessary in the body of an article. Currently there are many, many poor references in the draft, most of which are to YouTube (which should be avoided) or Shazam song pages, which would be a primary source and equally unsuitable. I'm not sure what you mean by your last question, but you may be overthinking it—I suspect all that happened is a misunderstanding on what was meant by "reliable sources". If this is the case, I would recommend reading through the pages linked to from the decline boxes on the draft. Perryprog (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem I will read them again to make sure. I was just thinking though, if I am mentioning a body of work that is a video done by said person mentioned in the article, and that video with said credit is available on youtube I would have thought that to be credible. Is there another site that wiki likes to see references that display a visual work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogetu2 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe reading through the relevant sourcing policies (namely, those on reliable sources) should clarify that. I would also strongly recommend reading through both of Your First Article and Common sourcing mistakes. Seriously—take the time to read through those last two links in their entirety. It will be much more difficult to work on your draft without doing so, as Wikipedia has a very, very difficult learning curve and writing an article—especially on a living person—is easily one of the hardest tasks to complete on Wikipedia. Perryprog (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay I will read through those again, no problem. Is there a service offered where one can have someone generate an article that will pass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogetu2 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , sort of. You can request it at Requested articles, but there's no guarantee about when it will be looked at—if I recall correctly, the number of other requested articles is in the tens of thousands. Many of these may never be written because our article topics are chosen by our readers based on their own interests. There's essentially no guarantee that anyone will create an article on a topic listed there, but it is a way to put the idea out there for someone to consider. Perryprog (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogetu2 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)