User talk:TheTechie/Archives/2025/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TheTechie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I recently made an edit to the Steve Young's (Steve Young) Wikipedia page, which was reverted, stating; "Please cite your sources." However, The source was already hyperlinked in the original Wikipedia article (List of dual-threat quarterback records). The source that the Steve Young page is using lists him as #4 in career rushing touchdowns, the Steve Young page states he is #3. I even linked to this page in my edit description.

Should I undo your revert? Brojoee (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Brojoee Wikipedia cannot be cited within itself. Furthermore, you must cite a reliable source upon potentially controversial changes like this (Ctrl+Shift+K on Visual editor).

So, no, do not revert my revert.

Hope this makes sense. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also please WP:BRD, you seem like a new editor and this seems like a useful resource for you. Note that is not bold revert restore, but bold revert discuss. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SounderBruce was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The route description section is entirely unsourced. The history section overuses quotes and doesn't adequately make the case for notability.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Capitol Highway and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SounderBruce 21:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi TheTechie! Nom of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article here, would you mind self-reverting your close, as you were involved? While it is obviously going to close as keep, WP:NACINV state that Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at Wikipedia:Administrators § Involved admins. Closing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure. For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted, or XfD discussions where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion; thank you! :) This weeks's tornado; E_F⁵ 04:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@EF5 Sorry about that, thanks for letting me know. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. It's okay to make a non-admin closure but you should just do it instead of !voting. If you do end up !voting, then it's best to leave it for someone else. Anyone closing a discussion is expected to be uninvolved and impartial. Not to say you shouldn't be bold in the future, just make sure not to also !vote.--v/r - TP 06:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@TParis thanks for the added details. Looks like someone has undone my undoing of my closure. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• MexFin (talk · contribs)
  • Disinformation research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Disinformation research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello!

I am writing to understand more about your decision to reject the draft of disinformation research. I am writing this here because the template used to reject the submission is a bit unclear, and I would like to have more clarity on the precise issue so I can correct it. The template emphasizes three problems with the draft: Informal writing, neutral point of view, and reliable sources.

- Informal writing. Could you please help me understand what exactly you see as informal writing? I would like to know how to correct it.

- Neutral point of view. I even included a section on criticism of this line of research precisely to make it neutral.

- Reliable sources. Could you help me understand which sources are not reliable? I included 38 academic references, all of them from peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

Thank you so much for your help. MexFin (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@MexFin I have responded on the AFCHD thread. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello TheTechie, Vitorperrut555 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vitorperrut555 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello mate, there's an ongoing discussion about album reissues and remixes at WikiProject Music. Please do stop by and leave your suggestion Thank you. dxneo (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TheTechie,

I was just working on closing nearly two dozen AFDs that you had opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 3 and am hoping that I can persuade you to not post a deluge of AFDs over the course of an hour or two. Please pace yourself and don't post so many on the same day. Maybe 3 or 4 a day over the course of a week. Remember that every single AFD you post has to be reviewed by a closer and, typically, several commentators.

Also, your deletion rationales are very insubstantial and poor. It's not evident from reading them whether or not you have conducted a thorough WP:BEFORE which is required. Look for sources that might not have been found yet before nominating an article for deletion. Thank you though for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I support the above comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC).

Hello Liz and Xxanthippe,

Thank you for your comments. I will take these comments into account when I start my next XFD. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

So I noticed that you had tagged the Vikasa Soudha page for the lack of a lead. I have added lead to the article now, but my main inquiry is the second tag, that is the notability tag. The notability tag us for geographic features, but the Vikasa Soudha is a man made structure. Do I just revert it? AlvaKedak (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@AlvaKedak No, do not revert it. You need at least three reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Last time I checked, there were only two. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I will work on it then, thanks for the feedback. However I am still confused about the notability tag being for geographic features, are buildings considered as geographic features? AlvaKedak (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cornelius Pass Road you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Cornelius Pass Road you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cornelius Pass Road and Talk:Cornelius Pass Road/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The article Cornelius Pass Road you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cornelius Pass Road for comments about the article, and Talk:Cornelius Pass Road/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my Talk page messages while I was away due to IRL stuff. :) ~delta (talk • cont) 00:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@~delta No problem! Happy I could help! thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Techie!

Thank you for your message. I am trying to get a page approved and both times it questioned my sources. Do you have tips on this?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Economic2025 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Economic2025,

Thanks for your message. I recommend you follow the general notability guideline as it will help you understand where your sources need to come from. Also, please avoid bare URLs. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 17:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Economic2025 Sorry wrong link for bare URLs. Correct one: Wikipedia:Bare URLs thetechie-mobile@enwiki (she/they | talk) 23:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

how do i submit my draft for review? --DusekDecorStore (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)