User talk:Absurdum4242

Welcome!

Hello, Absurdum4242!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Cassiopeia talk 08:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Yamakawa Kikue, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cassiopeia talk 08:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the change that I made was to change to the correct translated name for the law that passed, and was referenced in the previous edit, and to link to the Wikipedia page for that law (which I’ve been doing to any orphaned / non-linked references to that law that I’ve been able to find - about 20 in total). I’m uncertain what source you think would be needed to change the name to the correct translation, and to link it to that page - which also contains the information about the age requirement. I DO in fact have a source I can link to, a newspaper article published the day after the law was passed, but it seems irrelevant to the Yamakawa Kikue article - belonging to the page about the law itself instead. I can add it now if you prefer, but I think it would make the page worse not better to do so. Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the other change I made was to clean up the syntax / grammar of the sentence “Accompanied by” is not grammatically correct English. Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absurdum4343, Good day. You are welcome to do copy edit (grammar and etc.) but if you change or add info, then you need to provide independent, reliable source such as from the newspapers and books to support your claim. You can use the "horizontal format" of Template:Cite web if the source is from the web. Source in any language is welcome as long as it meets the said requirement above. I suggest you to complete WP:TWA so you would familiar with Wikipedia fundamental guidelines to help you on Wikipedia editing. Let me know if you have any further questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there… umm… I honestly can’t see what information I have changed or added in this case, except for using the correctly translated name for the law, and adding the original Japanese name for the law in brackets - which is all contained in the Wikipedia article I linked to. Is there any chance you could explain to me which information in my edit you consider “new”? Otherwise, like I said I can link to the newspaper article, but that seems like a really messy / distracting way to do it? Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve redone it now with that reference included. I still think it distracts from the flow, but hopefully it helps. Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided the source. If you use books as source then use the horizontal format of Template:Cite book. Cassiopeia talk 09:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Manhood Suffrage Law

Hello! Thanks for your efforts to link this law in Wikipedia articles. Just as an FYI, I changed the title to Universal Manhood Suffrage Law, as this is the standard English translation for this law used at the time in the 1920s, by the Japanese government today, and in academic sources. This is because the law was the result of the Universal Manhood Suffrage Movement" in Japan drawing upon the concept of Universal manhood suffrage that was expanding around the world at the time. All instances of General Election Law on the web seem to derive from the English Wikipedia article with that idiosyncratic title created here in 2006. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, interesting - I’ve specifically been changing it away from that in articles, just because the main page was named that, and individual pages were about 50/50 which they used. I guess I have to go change the articles that I’ve already switched it in tonight 😆

I figured that fixing all the orphaned links / mentions to it would be a good first practice task, since I only started today.

I’ll get back on to that now I guess, thanks for taking the time to explain. And rename / redirect…

Actually, you might be able to tell me how to do that. I came across another poorly named page while I was doing those links, and I’d love to rename it / set up a couple of different redirects to it for other versions of the name. Absurdum4242 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Transfermarkt

See WP:WPFLINKSNO. Much of Transfermarkt's content is user-edited making it a self-published, and therefore unreliable, source. As for other sources, your best bet is almost always going to be look at what sources are cited in similar articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your reply.

As far as I can tell from looking at other historical season pages for the UK / European seasons now, it’s a mix of either https://www.worldfootball.net or otherwise just absolutely nothing, and most all of the articles have “citations required” marks on them. Which is fine as far as it goes if that’s how everyone has decided to handle it.

If I use worldfootball.net for the other articles in the series (which I am happy to do) am I likely to have editors take those citations out as well, or is that generally considered a reliable site?

I apologise for taking your time, I’m a new editor with no real interest in soccer generally, but an interest in Japan, which is why I picked that article up from their rescue from deletion list. I’d like to do this right. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your support in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Bangladesh-India border clash. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NP, I don’t have a dog in the fight either way - but it seems like a reasonably sourced article. It could do with being a little more neutral etc, which I’m eventually going to have a go at editing into it, but doesn’t seem delete-worthy Absurdum4242 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While doing some more research, I noticed that this article “Deaths along the Bangladesh–India border” is a more overarching article about the problem, and contains a section about the 2005 clashes. If the article is deleted, it should be possible to move the information over to this article as a merge. In fact, I’m wondering if we should suggest that in the deletion deliberation, as a way to resolve it smoothly? (I’m not sure exactly how changing your vote / you withdrawing your article as creator would work here, since I’m new). It would be much more likely to achieve consensus if we did it that way? Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I Don't Think Merge is the correct solution nor is deletion, For example, Check the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. There are many minor skirmishes with lack of coverage yet no nomination for deletion, nor merging. I am comparing that with the clashes with Bangladesh and India is because the clashes have a similar pattern. It should be a separate page with the August 2005 Clash be added to that as well. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, those minor skirmishes with lack of coverage should be nominated for deletion. There are loads of them, yes, but that doesn't mean they meet our guidelines so much as that no one has gotten around to removing them yet. (Sorry for jumping in to this discussion, I just happened by on this talk page.) -- asilvering (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Lack Of Coverage? Explain. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said There are many minor skirmishes with lack of coverage yet no nomination for deletion, nor merging. If you see articles in this state, they should be deleted. Articles need to meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Sure, I'll nominate them for deletion/merging. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you understood that I disagree with both, Deletion and Merging. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I do understand that you disagree with both, I… wonder why though? I can’t see any information in your stand line article that isn’t (or at least couldn’t be with very minor editing) in the 2005 clashes section within the larger article.

I’m outside the politics, not having any allegiance to either side, and honestly I suspect politics WAS behind the deletion request, so I’m not thinking in terms of winning / losing culture war points which….. I assume maybe everyone but Liz in that selection talk is? Deletion nomination dude’s points were just kind of silly and factually incorrect, but at the same time I can’t see why YOU wouldn’t want the articles merged except for reasons of wanting to win / stop that guy - because the information itself would be preserved and present either way. Especially since it was the main article that popped up first, not yours, when I googled again today for more sources etc.

Suggesting merge seems like it can’t lose to me, but…

Anyway, the other reason I reached out was to give you a heads up that IF your article is deleted, it would be very easy to add anything lost to the other larger article, and THAT article should be completely proof against any chance of deletion, as it has sustained sources, over many years. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct that the sources should be preserved, But I am still for it to be in the Encyclopedia. You can ask more questions, I don't mind, I might not be able to answer sometimes when I am in school or I am outside. If i have time, I can answer. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes, Should I help you with anything? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Absurdum4242, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hello, Absurdum4242,

I don't think you are experienced enough to be participating in AFD deletion discussions. You have to really be acquainted with Wikipedia's polices, guidelines and standards for notability and also have the ability to correctly assess sourcing in an article. But some of your comments have been thoughtful so I wonder if you edited Wikipedia before, with another account. Most editors who have been editing less than a month, do not display much familiarity with judging sources and assessing notability. So, I'm not going to tell you to stop participating but please do not spread yourself too thin and comment on a lot of AFDs, select a few on subjects you are most knowledgeable about and analyze them thoroughly.

Another thing I'm going to ask you to do is to PLEASE put your comments at the bottom of the discussion. Sometimes you are placing them in the middle of the discussion which is very confusing on a discussion thread that is arranged chronologically. That should be an easy request to abide by. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for your message. I’ve never edited Wikipedia before, but have been studying different things at uni for decades, so finding and judging sources is something I can do - and that honestly other editors commenting seemed not to be able to do. And I figured the best way to learn was to do it - and that if I was getting it wrong people would either ignore me, or tell me where I was stuffing up, which would help me going forward. Plus there seemed to be a ton of stuff which keeps getting relisted due to no / minimal replies, so I thought I could at least do that…

Re comment positioning, it’s been driving me absolutely nuts too. I’m editing off an iPad because I don’t use desktops, and there has been NO consistency with where my replies have been appearing. Click the reply in the same place three times, and have it turn up in three different positions, and I have absolutely no idea why. So I’m really sorry about that, and I’ll do my best, but until I get to the bottom of why…

Anyway, thanks again for your message, have a great day,

Michael Absurdum4242 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242, you may simply need to start using the source editor to make replies, rather than the reply tool. It's not terribly fiddly, and that way you'll always be able to place your comments exactly where you want them to go. Just put a : at the beginning of the line to indent it one step. I've appreciated your comments at AfD, by the way. -- asilvering (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Help

Thanks for your support in AfDs and I hope you could contribute to the newly created pages, Bangladesh Popular Party and Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Olama Dal, When I was creating the page, I needed more sources and later on understood that the pages need improvement, and revisions that are vital to the page by other users. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Make your own user page. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Tochigi Governors has been accepted

List of Tochigi Governors, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Hello again, Can you add more information to this draft: Draft:Rahmat Darji? If you can't, no problem. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, searched now, and google is giving me nothing. Good luck with it though. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok No Problem. I only found one source from Songramer Notebook which I already cited. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a famous case? If it’s minor you might have trouble getting it approved / defending it from deletion unless you can come up with enough to prove notability. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to establish notability. I am searching the name by different ways such as books, newspapers, websites, journals. Some websites come up but many of them are just lists of Peace Committee members. I don’t just also search in Google, I search in local ones as well, I am looking for some. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for some reliable and trustworthy sources. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Japan at the 2022 Asian Para Games has been accepted

Japan at the 2022 Asian Para Games, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Naraht (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Thank you for your participation in AFDs on Japan-related subjects. It's nice to have another editor who reviews sources in Japanese and shares my view that a competent review of native-language sources should be a prerequisite before nomination. Have a good weekend! DCsansei (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei Hey, thanks. Yeah, it’s been really good to see you on there too. I’ve lost some AfD’s recently because even though I’ve come up with SEVERAL sources, enough other editors don’t really accept non-English sources, and/or swamp the vote early, and then don’t change votes / reply again after the relist. If no one else chimes in, page is deleted.

This is especially true on soccer articles where some are indeed poorly sourced, but a group of editors is moving through stubs created by an editor that was blocked globally for creating poorly sourced articles (supposedly, though, going through his old posts, I don’t really see it?) and voting delete on pretty much all the pages the others nominate, without actually doing a review of Japanese sources - or, indeed, being prepared to look at sources provided and linked to by those of us who do find them through our review.

It’s frustrating, and I kind of wish that, since there’s no way of preventing the nominations, more of us in WP Japan would engage in the AfD process. Absurdum4242 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any help needed? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet Additional eyes on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan for articles nominated without a competent WP:BEFORE search are always welcome. DCsansei (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Easterhouse Festival Society (January 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rahmatula786 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not much improvement being done what was advised by previous reviewers. Plz re write with only relevant info supported by neutral sources.

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:Easterhouse Festival Society 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.

Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

Hi Absurdum4242, when changing assessments from Stub class to Start class or higher as you did on Talk:Robot Detective with this edit, also ensure you remove the stub category on the article as well as I did here. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions to Japan-related articles. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard, feel free to invite anybody else you know at WP:Japan or NZ who you think might be interested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destubathon runs until the 16th of July

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destubbing barnstar

	Destubbing Barnstar
	For your efforts in destubbing in the 50,000 Challenge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Suō no Naishi

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Suō no Naishi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Astragalus laxmannii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Astragalus adsurgens. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions and AFC

In the future, when publishing drafts into mainspace, please make sure that the short description are short per WP:SDFORMAT. Ideally under 40 characters, but up to 60 is normally fine as long as the key information is in the first 40. This one showed up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Long short descriptions as it was over 96 characters. For works like this article, it's normally "[year] [type of publication] by [author]" as listed at WP:SDEXAMPLES. Thanks. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry for that. Someone else had already filled the short description part in, and I’m afraid I didn’t check it when I pressed accept, because I could see there was already a description there. I’ve only been doing AfC for 3 days, so still a bit new to it - I will definitely do better in future. Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hoshi Matsuri has been accepted

Hoshi Matsuri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed

The Draft:Department of Finance (Jharkhand) that you rejected while ago has now been updated. I have added a World Bank citation that talks about budget allocations of Jharkhand by its finance department & its state sponsered government schemes, explicitly mentioning a scheme name "Maiya Samman Yojana" and I also included a PRS Legislative Research report on the Jharkhand Annual Budget 2025–26. Can you check if it's okay now ?

Thanks! Flashthomsom (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that looks like a reasonable source… there aren’t that many mentions of the department of finance itself, and many of those seem to just name it rather than specifically talking about it, but you should be able to use it overall. However, the next point is to use specific information from that source to expand and refine the article, and to specifically quote sections of that source by page number. On top that, you need to find at least one more good source, and use it in the same way.

Unfortunately, without 2-3 of thisnthis kind of source, editors, and indeed casual readers, often nominate articles for deletion - and fighting it is quite time consuming, and often fails, leading to the loss of all the work that went into creating the article in the first place. MUCH better to make the article bulletproof before putting it out where people might challenge it. So, keep knocking away at it. I’ll check in in a week or so, which will give you plenty of time to do the best job you can, but if you want to reapply and see if anyone else wants to accept it in the meantime, go ahead 👍 Keep up,the good work 👍

Also, if you need a break from this, try editing some other pages, either the suggested proof reading type ones, or just researching stub articles to add small pieces of information, or extra sources to make the, better. If you successfully edit enough pages, you’ll gain the ability to make pages without going through this process, and also the skills needed to make sure they are properly sourced. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flashthomsom sorry, forgot to link to you by name on the last reply 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Thanks! 🙏🏻 Flashthomsom (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:58:22, 14 September 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by 53zodiac

53zodiac (talk · contribs)
- Draft:4th Galician Uhlans (Emperor's) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

53zodiac (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4th Galician Uhlans

I disagree with your reasons for declining the article. Currently, it already has three academic sources: Thomas Mocharitsh's diploma thesis on Ruthenian military terminology, Evan Samborowski's paper on Galician military units, and Alexei Lithavorik's Russian language research on Austro-Hungarian units on the Eastern Front. I can't find many in-depth sources online, even in German, but my plan was to add more to the article when they became available

Strikçan Roman burial

I see you accepted this draft at AfC: do you really think it was written well enough for mainspace? I've done some work on the lead paragraph, but the rest still includes stuff like Other artefacts that were found in this Roman tomb were gold-threaded textiles who'm researchers believed were fragmented and it's material was also symbolized for high social standing of the Roman period and were also often used for garments which were worn by the elite., which doesn't make much sense. PamD 18:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Hi there 👋

Thanks for your editing on the Strikcan Roman burial page, and your feedback. Re the approval… actually yes? Weirdly, things like grammar/formatting mistakes are specifically not to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to approve AfC pages. Quoting from the approval page -

WP:AFCPURPOSE

The purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered.

There is a flowchart to follow, where you basically make sure there is no copyright infringement, it’s not patent nonsense, it’s written in English, it has enough sources to prove notability, and inline sources, and is “Encyclopedic” with a neutral POV, and then that’s it. Everything else can be fixed through editing once it’s up on main space. Absurdum4242 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Step 3, Suitability, does require the article to be "written in an encyclopedic style", which I don't think could be said of this garbled text, though unfortunately it doesn't then go on to include this in the "types of unsuitable article" below. It really is a mess, getting its facts very confused. I noticed it because I've got the editor's talk page on my watchlist after seeing their very poor earlier contributions: this was obviously an item put together in great excitement about an item covered in the news. It misrepresents the sources: the lead said "an inscription which archaeologists believed was written in either Greek or Latin by Gellianos", where the source said "rare bilingual inscription, dedicated to both the deceased, Gellianos, and the Roman god Jupiter.", and so on.

Ah well, it's the encyclopedia which "anyone can edit", including those who can't understand the sources they're reading. I'll try and find time and enthusiasm to go over the rest of it and make sense of it. PamD 21:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the section you quoted is pretty easy to understand. My suspicion is that the writer was an ESL editor, and the last thing we want to do is chase them away by biting the newbie with too much pedantry. Better to have them in and contributing.

the correct text in the excerpt you quoted would read -

Other artefacts that were found in this Roman tomb were fragments of gold-threaded textiles, indicating high social standing in the Roman period, and which were often used for garments worn by the elite. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gone back and sorted it now with a full proof read. I actually tend to give articles a once over once I approve them, but did this one late at night last night, and the sourcing / notability criteria was so clearly on point that it was pretty ,I h an immediate accept once I’d run through the sources listed. And then there is the proof in the pudding - we now have an interesting, and nicely written article about something unique in Albania, and which none of us would likely have noticed if the original editor hadn’t created this in a state of great excitement. And that’s a win.

I’ll just note that “in an Encyclopedic style” in this case means as opposed to an obvious piece of advertising, a kind of gushing fan page, or an argumentative student type essay, rather than being a “quality” judgement. The pages around the AfC and AfD criteria specifically mention spelling, grammar, general accuracy, and length as being things not to be taken notice of in the process, counting them as part of the “halo effect” of the article, rather than a criteria for deletion / refusal. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies and your work on the article. The editor's work and attitude are improving: his earlier attempt Katherine S. Layton, deleted at AfD (which was probably what brought him to my attention, as an article on a woman at AfD), was written in much the style of his comment in the AfD discussion, but he has now learned to use capitals rather less often. There's hope. PamD 08:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and approve

Thank you for your message on my talk page regarding Draft:INS_Aravali issues with this draft. I have fixed those issues. Please review and approve. Thank you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declining my page

Hello Absurdum4242,

You have declined my first publication - the futsal event , an Oceania championship because of lack of references. My page is about sport event. Important are information and statistics, it is not a journalism. Could you compare my page with huge pages like Euro 2024 or Volleyball Championship etc. My pages brings important statistics, which are unique, for example complete squad lists etc. I think you should focus on some specialization , sport is my specialisation and I have observed lot thousands of sport event pages in the past.

Kind Regards Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Vaclav 👋

To be clear, you did a great job assembling the facts, statistics etc into your article 👍 Unfortunately, and like I said in my comment on the decline notice, it is English language Wikipedia policy that each article needs to be able to prove notability. Notability is a technical term, which is not related to importance, or truth - rather, it is the requirement of 2-3 sources in independent secondary sources, which talk about the topic long enough to show that it is something people actually talk about. The policy and explanations is here Wikipedia:Notability.

Honestly, I wish the policy leaned more towards “is it true” than “is it notable” when deciding what stays and goes, but there are editors who will start deletion proceedings against anything without proved notability, and those proceedings are an incredible pain in the arse, and time sink, which is part of why the Articles for Creation process was started. The criteria for getting the article approved is literally “would this article survive deletion proceedings?” If yes, approved. If no, declined.

What this means for you - we need you to find and cite more written sources, and those sources cannot be from an organisation directly involved in the competition - it must be from outside media. For events like this there should be media reports about the event, team profiles in the media of the home countries sending teams, that sort of thing. If you can find and use those, then the article will be easily approved. If you cannot, then it will not.

I hope this helps, good luck finding the sources 👍 I will check back in a week or so, and see if the sources have been added, and then accept the article if they have, and no one else has accepted it. Have a great day. Absurdum4242 (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absurdum,

I need to make page live during the tournament to make public attention.

I have added all the links.

By the way I need another help with the templates.

I need to change football game template to be more suitable for futsal and

I need to change squad list template. Who in Wiki world can help with it ?

Regards

Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VaclavHumanAI hi there, it was still a little light on sources, since the Friends of Football source is a bit 50/50 as to whether it counts as “reliable” or not… I went ahead and found two other independent newspaper sources though, and that gives us 4 sources, which should be enough, since I assume more will turn up over the next week as the tournament is decided. Please keep an eye out for them and add them in too. Given those 4 sources, I went ahead and approved the article. Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as for templates etc… I have NO idea. I’ve only been here a year myself, and don’t really do anything on the technical side as I have no programming background. So not sure who to ask, sorry. Maybe try leaving a message in the teahouse? Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absurdum,

Thank you for your help. I know what you mean with Friends of Football, their article is not signed by author and your are signed by real authors.

But articles from Friends of Futsal NY are really good. They add score of game, scorers, table and links to free stream and video archive. Your signed articles miss all such info and authors were too lazy to call players or coaches to get their opinions.

Regards

Vaclav VaclavHumanAI (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Mark Ferguson

Hi @Absurdum4242,

Thanks for the constructive feedback. I have added some new secondary sources which I believe better prove notability

Here’s what I focused on

- Highlights reviews in independent secondary sources (CBC Music, AAJ, Jazz Journal, Exclaim!, NCPR, LatinJazzNet).

- Demonstrates broader impact (recordings, composition for TV, university teaching).

Could you take a look at these new sources and let me know if they meet the requirements? Mwhitesi (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re yamamoto kakuyoshi

@Absurdum4242, thank you for your comments and advice. There is a documentary featuring Iwakuma Tsutomu, where he speaks about being the last student Yamamoto Kakuyoshi and Mugen Shinto Ryu iaijutsu. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GTnaW308Hk Is this a good source? Grmnsplx (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave descriptive edit summaries

Hi. I noticed you often don't leave an edit summary (28% without to date), which means those changes are a mystery to watchers and historians alike. In order to know what you did, every un-summarized edit has to be manually reviewed. Please try to develop a habit of leaving descriptive edit summaries for your fellow editors. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violet chinchilla moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Violet chinchilla. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text and it is clearly ai per Special:Permalink/1313278155#Notes. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Absurdum4242, I sent this to you as well since you accepted the article. I have been looking at a few of your AfC accepts lately and observed that many lack proper sourcing and notability. I suggest you to assess them a bit more strictly so that we only accept articles which are suitable according to the policies. Thank you for your contributions. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles in particular were you thinking of? I’m quite happy to go through my thought processes / source checking for articles I approved, to make sure that I’m on the right page, if that helps? Or happy enough to lay off AfC checks all together. Its been interesting, but it’s a proper time sink, and lord knows I’ve got loads of other stuff to get on with over at WikiProject Japan 😆 Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, please do not take it in that way. You are doing a good job of reviewing with many articles being properly accepted thanks to a good source and content review as well; thanks a lot for taking time to participate in AfC! :D I just wanted to tell that it would be nice if you can raise the bar of quality and source reliability (what you consider reliable and WP:N worthy) a bit more than you do so that stuff is not on the borderline of notability. I'll get back with some examples in a while. Thank you once again for the contributions, they are really appreciated and valued! :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I’ll look forward to your reply whenever you have time 👍

you have a great night. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav

Just so that I am clear, where on the notes does it show as clearly AI? I read through it, checking the sources as I went, and it all seemed reasonably standard paraphrasing of information from the sources used. Or am I missing something?

Unless… are you suggesting that the Chinchillas.com site is AI generated, and thus poisoning the article from the source so to speak? I was wondering about Chinchillas.com as a reliable source, but it seems to be a long-standing industry publication, rather than a blog, and while I would not want to use it as a source on say specific companies within the industry, it seems like a reasonably reliable source on basic genetic / historical information which checked out according to other sources.

Apart from the Chinchillas.com site though, we have an article in a scientific journal, and a newspaper article providing a source / confirmation for the historical detail in both the article and the chinchilla.com articles.

Like, this was an article I was touch and go on, but I read around other online sources for an hour or so, found the article I added as a source, which is a bit of a puff media piece, but does seem to be an independent media outlet without ties to the chinchilla industry, and a paid editorial team rather than being a blog site. Being mentioned in non-industry media, AND scientific papers, as well as numerous industry publication sources tipped it over the line for me vis a vis notability. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the notes section, Attribution to specific ranchers and transfer history derives from industry accounts and is cited accordingly per self-published source guidance., that looks like AI to human communication to me. Nonetheless, I also have questions on the reliability of that website. About Chinchillas.com suggests it is a reselling company with a few history type pages. Couple of them may use reliable sources, but I highly doubt on that. The Penn state is clearly a poster, Sunshine Chinchillas is also a store, and mymodernmet seems like a blog, but I'm unsure. The scientific journal looks fine, but does not seem to have deep coverage of the violet ones. That does not seem like notability to me. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting back so quickly 😊

Oh interesting, see that reads exactly the opposite to me, like something that AI would be very unlikely to come up with, since it would require it to be doing meta-reading / linking within Wikipedia to the correct rule sets for the situation, AND need to know that it has a reason that it needs to do so. AI, or at least the ones I’ve played around with, tend to be incredibly bad at that kind of “meta-cognition”, because it doesn’t have enough existent models of that type of phrase, within this type of article, to work from. The correctly formatted and placed internal linking seems especially unlikely. Whereas I can very well imagine a human Wikipedia-noob who is excessively worried about “doing the right thing” and has diligently read through the Wikipedia rule-set before starting (as I did when I started, multiple times a day 😆) writing pretty much exactly that.

My Modern Met seems to be a fully fledged publication with membership / editorial policies and board / fully formed articles / interviews etc if you click through to the about us section, and homepage (which I did). Authors of articles seem varied as opposed to one person, and run proper bylines. The team section gives a full editorial board, and there is a submissions funnel requiring prospective writers to query editors.

Sunshine / Penn State I wasn’t using for the purposes of notability, though they were interesting and informative in and of themselves, and not problematic enough as sources to actually remove.

thanks again 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thought on the meta-cognition: The newer AIs that folks are using (GPT 5 especially) has gotten really good at that actually, though this development is recent and I can understand your perspective. It is also inserting such content when wp:n is not met, sources are primary, not reliable, etc. I can see the benefit of the doubt, but I think it is highly unlikely that a noob links to a shortcut (see source wikitext).

This is not about this specific article, but something I though you should be aware of in general. :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approval of spammy article

Hi Absurdum4242, I noticed you approved the article Form 2290, which contained blatant spam meant to promote ExpressTruckTax. I have also started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Form 2290 because the sourcing appears to be inadequate. In addition, some of the external links lead to error pages. Please check articles for spam before approving them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there@Helpful Raccoon 👋 Thanks for your message.

yes, I did indeed approve the article. It had three sources which appeared to be reliable independent media sources - Transport Topics, Freight waves, and Overdrive. They are industry specific publications, but are not blogs, run a number of different types of news articles, and all seem to have editorial oversight of the journalists writing for them. None of them seem to be directly connected to the US government, or the IRS - which is the topic of the article, so they seem to count as independent, and the articles they wrote about Form 2290 are secondary sources which talk about the form and the underlying tax at length, so they don’t fall down as “passing mentions”. Given that we have three reliable, independent, secondary sources, talking directly and at length about the topic of the article, notability seems to be fulfilled.

The external links still link to broken links, and that’s partially my fault. The source line citations themselves were broken (there were actual underlying articles, but the person writing it had mucked up their link somehow). I fixed the links in the line citations, but missed them in the references. I’ll go delete those now external links now (they aren’t really needed since we have the line citations). In fact, let’s remove all the external links. I can only assume a new editor misunderstood that vine citation and external links are two seperate things, with two seperate purposes.

As for the “spamminess” of the citation to ExpressTruck Tax… that’s a super easy fix - if you think it’s spammy, delete that section. In fact, I’ll go do that now too. That seems to be the only section mentioning an external company, so once that is fixed, and with at least three decent sources for notability, I can’t see an argument for deletion left. Could it be made better? Sure. That’s what editing is for.

Hope that you have a lovely day. Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]