S0091

Joined 4 November 2018

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MB for KARL LAGERFELD (talk | contribs) at 08:26, 14 November 2024 (Draft:Karl Lagerfeld (brand): Details of Declined Submition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 1 month ago by MB for KARL LAGERFELD in topic Draft:Karl Lagerfeld (brand) Article Submission

Your draft article, Draft:Clarissa Street

 

Hello, S0091. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Clarissa Street".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft: DVT IDE

Hi @S0091! Thanks for taking the time to review my submitted draft. Two quick questions:

1. You mentioned "Sources are primary, not independent and/or not reliable (user-generated content such as wikis or blogs)". Other than the Cadence Community source, which is an interview with the founder, would you catalogue other sources as being not reliable? Asking since the SemiWiki article is from their news section, not their wiki or forum sections, so I'm curious whether that would also be considered user-generated.

2. You included adv as the second reason, could you provide a few more details with regards to the parts of the article that don't follow NPOV guidelines? Would like to correct that.

Thanks! WikiAlexandra (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @WikiAlexandra in order for a source to be reliable it needs to at least have editorial oversight and a history of fact-checking (like PCMag for example) which none of the sources meet. In addition, sites where one can install DVT IDE or they offer other services are primary and not independent. Same for press releases. As for SemiWiki, it is ran by a single individual and is essentially a blog. Using such sources inherently leads to promotional content such as the Features section. It is essentially a copy of this source which was likely written by AMIQ. For each claim you make, the question to ask is "according to whom?". The answer should be a reliable secondary source by a named author based on their own independent research and analysis. Otherwise, it is not worth including as a Wikipedia article should mostly be a summary what reliable secondary sources say about a topic. S0091 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Got it, I think I have a better idea now. Would this be a reliable secondary source? It's an independent research paper on comparing the main IDEs for SystemVerilog, including DVT, published on the site of one the main industry conferences. WikiAlexandra (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@WikiAlexandra see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If it was published in a peer-reviewed journal or the like, then it would meet reliable source criteria. You might check Google Scholar as well. While not everything there meets the criteria you might find usable sources. S0091 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@S0091 thanks for the advice. I've rehauled the entire Features section to remove or minimize reliance on primary sources, and have added several secondary sources such as conference proceedings, industry textbooks and journals. Would it make sense to resubmit? WikiAlexandra (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@WikiAlexandra sure! Another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Administrator elections

Hello , I really admire your work and believe you’d make an excellent admin - we needs more dedicated people like you. Would you be open to me nominating you? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the compliment and offer, @Saqib! It means a lot coming from you; however I don't think I would enjoy being an admin. S0091 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can keep on doing the same stuff you're doing now, just with the ability to view deleted revisions and occasionally do your own RD1s. Every little helps. Just saying. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the note @Asilvering. Me being me, I would feel obligated to do more which is also the reason I am not an NPP reviewer (enough to do as is). I also think even if I did want to be admin, my RfA would be similar to Significa liberdade's RfA except I am not a content creator so it would be even worse. S0091 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, I know and sympathize with the "obligated to do more" feel. (Observe: my edit count in September as I learned the admin ropes.) Regarding RFA... sigh. Yes, perhaps. I'd like to think that since we've already had that fight, we wouldn't have it another time, but I suppose even I am not quite that naïve. I hold out hope that the three-day window of the discussions in the elections format helps with this problem. -- asilvering (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Asilvering what happened to Significa liberdade is a continuing battle that's been going on since Draft space and the AfC process as we know now it was introduced (AfC existed before but it was mostly for IPs because autoconfirm didn't exist). Onel5969, who was one of the most prolific NPP reviewers and kept the backlog down, no longer reviews because of the strife they received though they still have the perm and MB's RfA tanked for the same reasons, who has not edited since, as have other RfAs. Like everything else on Wikipedia it depends on who shows up and what their pov is. That's not to say their aren't valid criticisms, both about the processes and the editors, but RfAs are often used as platform for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not that I have ever wanted to be admin but these instances, among others, have certainly influenced me about what and how much I want to do here in various ways. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Though I think SL's was uniquely messed up in this regard, since it's possible to view Onel as brusque and MB as rude, but no one can say with a straight face that SL is bitey, unless you simply define draftification per se as bitey. Lays it somewhat bare. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin October Issue 1


MediaWiki message delivery 23:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

HEC Paris

Hi. Nice to meet you. Following the discussion here : Wikipedia:Teahouse#HEC Paris contributions , please would yo be so kind to correct your contributions on the article HEC Paris with what is mentioned : MOOC section was correct, as well as few others. I suggest you to check what you have done slowly nicely. Thank you very much in advance. Kind Regards. 110.232.86.40 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Hope you have a nice day. We start to do it ourself, if you want you can join the discussion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hoary#HEC_Paris ; Otherwise the job will be done soon. Have a very nice day.--110.232.86.40 (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft: Dr. Amarjit Singh Manhas

You rejected the previous drafts in the name of unreliable sources. I'm making this page for my uncle and things about his life or career can be sourced through his own website which I have linked in the external sources section. Is it not enough? Can you please guide me how can I cite things for his page ? Rheemaa Gangwani (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Rheemaa Gangwani, no, his website should mostly not be used outside of very basic facts should as his date of birth. It is not enough that he exists; you need to show he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines which requires in-depth coverage about him in independent secondary reliable sources. If no such sources exist, an article about him is not possible. I suggest reading Your first article. S0091 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag (2nd nomination)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag (2nd nomination). You've been invited because you took part in the first AfD discussion. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do not censor

Hi {{{S0091}}}, it appears you removed content without discussing it on the article talk page. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored, and content should not be removed because it is controversial. If you believe the information is inaccurate, please reach a consensus on the article talk page. Raghav 1048 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) @S0091: To give perspective, I believe this is about the University of Lucknow article you both edited.
@Raghav 1048 I think you are misreading/misapplying WP:NOTCENSORED, especially the part about ignoring Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view). If content is inserted without a citation, it fails WP:V and can be tagged or removed. I don't see anything out of the ordinary about S0091 removing something without a reference, and would not consider that 'removing because it's controversial'. Please see WP:EDITCON regarding the process once text is removed in an article and how the process normally goes.
One thing I want to point out - On October 4, you were reverted by multiple editors and restored the same removed text four times from the same article. Please be mindful of WP:3RR, which is an offense that can get one blocked and contrary to the consensus building process.
Awshort (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would like to clarify that S0091 has been actively trying to remove the brief history of Canning College, which later transformed into Lucknow University. I provided several citations to support the information, demonstrating its relevance and historical significance. Despite this, S0091 removed all references without valid justification, seemingly attempting to erase important context about the institution’s past. It’s crucial for us to maintain a comprehensive and accurate narrative in the article, reflecting both the history and evolution of the university. Raghav 1048 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Raghav 1048 what I removed was largely unsourced. Please be aware the WP:BURDEN (read that) is on you to provide appropriate sources and you have been reverted and warned by several editors about adding unsourced content, yet you continue. At this time, most of the History section is still unsourced which makes it vulnerable to removal by any editor. No one needs to start a discussion with you or get consensus to remove unsourced material. S0091 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @S0091, my edits were based on thorough research using British newspaper archives about Canning College's transformation into Lucknow University. The previous history section mainly mentioned Mohammad Ali Mohammad Khan, but key contributors such as various nawabs, rajas, and Harcourt Butler’s government were overlooked. I included citations and historical photos to provide a more comprehensive view. Instead of revising specific issues, you deleted the entire section. It would be more constructive to address inaccuracies rather than reverting well-sourced content that aims to enrich the page. Raghav 1048 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request on 11:34:40, 18 October 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Mofembot



Hi there, "S0091," I'm trying to create an article about Dr. Larry Glasser, a retired professor of physics and mathematics. I am not a mathematician (to say the very least), though since your review and rejection of the initial draft, I've gotten more info about him that I believe must qualify him as a "notable" person worthy of a wiki entry; for example, this from an incomplete PDF I received a few days ago (I need the sender to provide the entire PDF with the endnotes):

"Glasser has published over 400 research papers and three books in physics and mathematics with nearly 100 co-authors, including Norman March, Freeman Dyson and Jonathan Borwein. His Erdos number is 2. His eponymous results include Glasser’s Master Theorem, The Glasser Transform, the Glasser function, the Glasser-Lehman Theorem, the Onsager-Glasser Theorem and the Kaplan-Glasser State."

Given the number of hits I found just for "Glasser's Master Theorem" alone, Larry's work seems to be pretty important. I'm not sure how to go about proving something that I'm not really qualified to analyze myself, hence my reliance on the input of his nephew, who is a now-retired math prof.

(I am writing this article as a favor to his daughter, whom I have known for many years; I am acquainted only slightly with Larry himself. After I receive the complete PDF I mentioned above, I will finish the second draft and resubmit it, though having your input first would obviously make sense. Thanks in advance for any and all advice. —Lynn aka Mofembot) Mofembot (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mofembot first some "paperwork". Given your relationship with the family, you need to declare your conflict of interest. See WP:COIDECLARE but if you need help, let me know and I will add the declaration to your user page. I will also leave some additional information about rules regarding those with a COI, which also extends to Glasser, his family members and anyone associated with him. In a nutshell, having a COI does not preclude you from working on the draft but once it is an article, those associated with him should not edit it directly but rather make edit requests. I strongly suggest you make the family aware of the rules.
I agree he very likely meets the notability criteria and we actually have an article about Glasser's master theorem, which I have also linked in the draft. However, we cannot use what his nephew says so that needs to be removed. What is needed are published reliable sources that are accessible to the public (see WP:PUBLISHED) so anyone in the world at anytime can access the source(s). Therefore, the PDF his nephew provided you is not usable. See Your first article for some additional guidance about writing a Wikipedia article. As it stands now, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Like you, I am not a mathematician but that's ok because we have editors who are. I am going to post a note at WP:WikiProject Mathematics to see if an editor active there is willing to help get the draft up to acceptable standards. I will ping you there. S0091 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mofembot, I'll just add to what S0091 already said that I too am pretty confident Glasser meets the standards at WP:PROF. This is doable - you just need to properly source everything. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin October Issue 2


MediaWiki message delivery 23:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added citations to page

hi a page i submitted was denied due to citations and i've added them, thank you: Draft:Venhue Warshipnyc (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Warshipnyc please see my response at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#15:11, 21 October 2024 review of submission by 98.116.99.122. The sources are not sufficient with some being unreliable so should not be used. S0091 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
thanks which are unreliable so I can remove them and get approved Warshipnyc (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
hi, i updated sources and added sources thanks! Warshipnyc (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Warshipnyc it's clear you did not read my response at the Help Desk I linked to above and now that it's been archived, I am not going to go through the effort to dig it out for you. There's been no improvement with the sources demonstrating it meets WP:NCORP so the rejection stands. S0091 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding a draft

Dear, we have addressed your comment regarding "Sources written by Bazzi cannot be used to establish notability because they are not independent" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmad_Bazzi

We have removed all references written by Bazzi. Randomreader162 11:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin November Issue 1


MediaWiki message delivery 22:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would this be acceptable to you?

Hello, I am currently at work and on lunch but wanted to reply to the Abigail Williams & Liberty German talk page (Reliability of sources discussion) but realized that the conversation between us was going off topic somewhat.

I didn't know if you would be willing to, but since our conversation is between both you and I on that page with no responses that I could see needing either of our posts necessarily and has seemed more focused on user conduct rather than article content, would it be acceptable to you to possibly move both of our comments to one of our talk pages per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and continue the discussion there? If not that is completely fine, but I don't have the technical know how to pull it off and don't want to touch another user's comments without their permission either way, and hatting the conversation without replying to you seemed rude. I figured I would ask before replying to try to keep the talk page more focused on content if possible.

I haven't gotten to write Valereee yet with the same suggestion, but wanted to at least write you before lunch was over. Thanks and have a good night (or morning, depending on your area of the world).

Awshort (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Karl Lagerfeld (brand) Article Submission

Hi User:S0091, hope you are well! Thank you very much for taking the time to review the Karl Lagerfeld eponymous brand draft back in June, really appreciated. In order to amend the draft to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and be able to resubmit again for review, I would like to get some further explanation about the reasons why the article got declined, and what can I do to improve it. Can you please kindly let me know which parts of the article are not compliant with Wikipedia guidelines, the reasons why, and what can I do improve/amend those parts.

Thank you very much for your support. Kindly, MB for KARL LAGERFELD (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply