User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

@CASSIOPEIA:

hi can you review my articles/drafts? Danieleb82 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Danieleb82: Done. I have added other source for you besides what are on the pages. Pls added content that not only from primary source (such as what the band members commented on their songs but review and other info from independent source about the songs, media reception, tour, other artist cover the songs, commercial success,in popular culture, live performance, charting and etc. - See You've Got Another Thing Comin' and Living After Midnight for reference. Thank you for the contribution. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for help

		The Good Friend Award
		You gave advice and help to me. Told me about citing articles and encourage me to participate TWA. Please give me advice in future also PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving of Smart displays to Draft:Smart displays

Hi there! You seem to have moved the page regarding smart displays to a draft version for valid reasons. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't stop you. I created the page as a side note, and was used in the Google Assistant page. The page did not exist, so I created it to fill its place. The article is in need of expansion, but I just wanted to let you know about the page's use. Since then, redirects have been made, and Smart displays now redirects to the draft. Thanks for understanding!Garretttehrobloxplayer (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Garretttehrobloxplayer: Good day. I am one of the new page reviewer in Wikipedia. I came across you page and moved the page to draft for you to further develop the page. As how it stands now, it would could not be reviewed as there is only 1 sentence without any directvsource and it is not ready to be in the main space. (I have left a message you on your talk page prior prior your message to me here) When you have provided more info and cited with then let me know so, I could review for you and get it published if the subject meet the notability requirements. We dont redirect a page to draft, but we move it. You have redirect the page to draft, when the page is in main space, it will also go back (redirect to draft) which it will not stand, as when page on the draft would not be published. So, you have revert your redirect - link here [1]. When I have reviewed the page, I will moved it back to draft space. Hope this help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for your review on the article page BMW HP4 Race! I see that this page has been reviewed twice! I have started approx. half dozen articles and this is the first time that an article I wrote is reviewed twice. Anyway, thanks again for your kind review. Keep up the good work. - Navinsingh133 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Navinsingh133: Thank you and good day. Your article has been pattrolled once by me. The other editor who knows a lot of about motorbikes helping your article on various aspects to make it better and provide info of the changes as Wikipedia content is a collaboration works from many editors. Please note all content needed to be supported by a wide coverage of independent reliable source - see WP:SIGCOV and WP:RSand subject recreation needs to meet notability requirement - see here WP:N. Well done and thank you for the contribution to Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Barnstars for you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This is for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 03:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		This for your guidance given to me about sources and citing. Thank you. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 03:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

MMA Sports Specific Notability - Mike Jackson (fighter)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson_(fighter) I dont get, i improved the notability and still gave me the tag, how do remove. I see them on pages many times or even year... 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Good evening. There are many WikiProjects in Wikipedia. Each WikiProject forms specific notability guidelines. For mixed martial arts WikiProject, please see WP:MM (since you are interested in MMA - pls "read through everything" as the guidelines are very specific down do when to use a ":", big or small cap, dash vs. hyphen and etc.). Secondly the "sport specific notability for a mma fighter" requirements are

has fought in 3 top tier promotion - see WP:MMABIO
current top tier promotions defined under WikiProject MMA are Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Invicta Fighting Championships (Invicta) - see WP:MMATIER.

Your creation of Mike Jackson might meet general notability guidlines but the fighter has only one tier one fights (UFC), for such the notability tag is placed for it fails mma sport specific notability. The article might get PROD (propose for deletion) for not meeting WP:MMABIO. Let me know if you need further assistance and sorry that Holloway was prevented to make it to the octagon. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing articles

Hi, Greetings, Sir, please review my articles which I have added sources. Kollam Orthodox Diocese, Adoor Kadampanad Orthodox Diocese, Kottayam Orthodox Diocese, Thumpamon Orthodox Diocese, Kottayam Central Orthodox Diocese, Kochi Orthodox Diocese.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Path slopu:, Good day. I think your articles have been reviewed by other reviewer. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted redundant sentence & citing - UFC on Fox 29

Hello Cassiopeia, thank you for your message. Just to clarify: the content I deleted was clearly redundant. The page read: "...Brown pulled out of the fight... and was replaced by Alex Oliveira.[5][6] Brown is replaced by Alex Oliveira.[7]" The citings numbered [6] and [7] both referred to the same article. My explanatory note was: "delete redundant sentence and citing." With such a clear redundancy, this explanation must surely be adequate. So yes, I think it was a mistake to undo my edit. However I do see that someone else has also now fixed the redundancy, and I am hoping that the sentence remains for now as WWEFan1926 left it. I hope you will agree that there is no reason for it to say "Brown is replaced by Oliveira" twice in a row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.243.208 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@76.115.243.208:, Greetings. I have rechecked the edit and you were right it was redundant which I overlooked the mistake. My apologies and I have removed tag from your talk page. Thank you for informing me of the above. Have a good day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Oretga

So Brain Oretga will be facing the New Lightweight Champion Khabib (or Al.. or Feather Champion Max Holloway? 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucie Pudilová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent improper of flagging of a user Vandalism

@CASSIOPEIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Holloway&oldid=833758706 Obvious Dispute that flagged the wrong user(s) for Vandalism/TW without reviewing. Max Halloway is indeed 155lbs according to UFC.com ( http://www.ufc.com/event/UFC-223 ) 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Greetings to you. First of all accordingly to UFC web site Max Holloway is still in 145 Ibs division - see here [2] and he is about to fight in 155 this weekend but NOT yet. Secondly, nick name on Champ Champ was not source anywhere - see you edit here [see here [3]. I have followed UFC for more than 9 years and read up mma news and podcasts, and I dont recall anywhere any media has called him "champ champ" which it looks like a false statement. Do understand all content in Wikipedia need to be supported by source. Once Holloway finished his fight this weekend, you are welcome to put 155 Ibs back in. Have a good day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I disagree, i only edited the pounds part to 155lbs which follow UFC.com until UFC Post a weigh in. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not allow put source after there also. My Warning for that voided and should given the other user who put that.

@BusriderSF2015: Content added/edited in Wikipedia needs "inline citation" from independent (third party / secondary / tertiary) reliable source (in any language) for verification to gauge the nobility criteria is met. The articles's inline citation is the WP:BURDEN which it is on the person adding the information. Halloway is moving up a class and weight-in doest not mean a fight is held. I believe you are a mma fan like me and know anything could happen such as even on the day of the fight, fighters would not make it to the octagon and the fight does not cement. Secondly, you can put the source in as long as the content claim is as per source. Happy watching UFC 223. 01:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Then we just have wait for the Weigh Ins

@BusriderSF2015:, Greetings. The weight-in in on this Friday. As mentioned above, even Hollaway makes the weight (he has a big weight cut for a 6 day notice for this fight), he has NOT fought the fight yet. Everyone could make certain weight class divisions, but they have not yet fought in those division, you cant say they are in certain weight classes. Wait until the pair touch glove and referee (hopefully is not Mario Yamasaki) says "fight", then you are welcome to added in 155 ibs divsion (do leave 145 Ibs there, as Holloway still the current champion in that division and he would still defend the belt in the near future). I saw you finally upload a legit (no copyright infringement) photo of Max. Good work. Have a good day and may the best man of the night win the fight. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

@BusriderSF2015:, Holloway was deemed medically unfit to compete by doctors due to weight cutting. - see here [4]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think someone removed my Max Holloway Picture on Max Holloway Wikapedia page...the picture still there (no rules broken), but i cant see any reason it was removed. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015:, I saw. An IP editor did; an act of shenanigan I guess. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Apparently the Max Holloway Picture is a copyright issue in a user view, and been removed, but going dispute it fully because its my own work....(just something happen to land on same timing...)🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015:, Evident provided seems legit of copy right infringement - it looks like a crop photo from internet. An ANI discussion of your edits have posted where you need to reply. Please read [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.

Thank you for your edit. But sir iam citing source but you edited it very fast. The fact is that there is two types of editing, source and visual editing. So i am writing in source but citing in source is very hard so i tried to switch to visual editing but it said that you have to save the source edit first so i saved it. Then i tried very fast to cite source in visual editing but you edited in seconds. So please don't block me because i am not doing it on any personal thing. I think that is the necessary information which should be on wikipedia page of fantastic beasts. Thank youUchihaitachina (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Uchihaitachina (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Uchihaitachina: Greetings to you. First of all, you can switch from source mode to visual mode (and visa versa) without needing to save the edit first. Just go to the top left corner and click on the drop drown "pencil icon" and just click any mode of editing. Secondly read WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:AVOIDVICTIMa and WP:PUBLICFIGURE when edit/add content regarding living person on controversy topics. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Very very thanks for your information. Please you tell me does the information i am adding is wrong for wikipedia or is it against the rules of wikipedia. Because it is a bit confusing to read wikipedia guidelines. Please answer me back and elaborate it properly, i will be grateful to you. Uchihaitachina (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

And it is not possible to switch from source editing to visual editing by clicking on pencil icon because it shows a message to save your edit first and there is two options, first is ok and second is cancel. If you click on ok then it will be saved and if you click on cancel then you will be on the same page of source editing. Thank you Uchihaitachina (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Uchihaitachina:, When you click edit on the "sub section", it would show as per what you have mentioned above; however, if you click "source edit" on the top "menu bar" then you could switch the edit modes as you prefer. To edit on Wikipedia, do require editor to read the guidelines. Your edit - see here [5] does seem like an opinion edit where no source was provided. Do note, content on alleged crime or controversy topics on living person has to be treated with care. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Sir i am editing on mobile, so don't think i am editing on desktop. In mobile when you click the pencil icon on any page, take example of editing avengers reception then you are forwaded to source editing page. On that page there is only fourth things displaying on top. First a cut sign to cut the source editing page, second there is written Editing avengers and third a pencil icon when you click on that then two options source editing and visual editing. If you have edited on source editing page then want to switch then you have to save. If you haven't editing anything on source then you can switch on visual without saving. And fourth is a option whivh is next. This is it sir we can't switch. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchihaitachina (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Uchihaitachina:, Hi Thank you for the explanation above. My mobile does not have the features you mentioned above and guess the Wiki app that support your mobile are more advance than mine :). What you could do if you edit Wiki from mobile as follow:

select visual editing mode to edit the page and provide source then save
select the source editing mode to edit the page and provide source then save
if you need to switch from source editing to visual editing or visa versa for whatever reasons, provide the source first then save and go back to edit the page and stats "info provided is based on existing source on previous edit" on the edit summary so other editors could check/verify the content against the source.

Here is the sample to input source from "internet" in source editing mode

To add an in-line text citation for an internet reference: <ref>{{cite web|url = |title = |accessdate = 15 April 2018|author=|last = |first = |work = |date = 15 April 2018|year=|archiveurl = |archivedate = }}</ref> (please remove the nowiki signs when typing - start with <ref...... and end with /ref> - you could only see the nowiki sings on source edit mode and not not visual edit mode. Hope the above help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Kawagoe Festival Museum

I appreciate your advices. I added some references,so please check our article again.(TIC KAWAGOE (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)).

@TIC KAWAGOE:, Greetings to you and thank you providing the inlince citation. Please note that all the source/inline citation you provided are "primary source" where the sources are from either from Kawagoe Festival Museum official web site, pamphlets and public relation document. A reliable, independent source are from third party - which means source from newspaper, review, books which are not published from Kawagoe Festival Museum. My previous message to you have provide details info and links which you would read further. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@TIC KAWAGOE: Hi, I saw you input two newspaper references. Could you able to to provide the url so I would get it translated to English to work on the review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: PM2FGI

Hello CASSIOPEIA. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of PM2FGI, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A radio-station is sufficient to pass WP:CCSI.The appropriate criterion is G11. Thank you. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Good day. The article above has been deleted under G8 - see here [6]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

New Croydon ward pages approval

CASSIOPEIA Added a reference to the proposals from the LGBCE for the new wards - I wasn't aware pages could be set as drafts, otherwise I would've done that in the first place! Trimfrim20 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Trimfrim20: Greetings to you. I saw you add a PDF file as source. Could you able to get a source from newspaper (digital - web site) to support your content? Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

{The PDF file contains all the details of the new wards, published by LGBCE. The only other relevant source would be the actual government Electoral Changes order? Trimfrim20 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added the government order that makes the new ward boundaries law. Trimfrim20 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Trimfrim20:, Hi, first of all, if you write on other editor's talk page (like you wrote to me here) you dont need to ping the editor but you need to ping the editor if you write to him/her on "your talk page" and all other talk page (such as article talk page, discussion talk page, ANI and etc). I have a look at one of your page (Waddon (ward)). The web site pointed to a the "table of content". When citing a source, the source/inline citation need to "directly support the content" which the "table of content", secondly "The new ward was created from parts of Waddon and Broad Green wards. The first election is May 3rd 2018." does not supported by any source, thus kindly provide citation. Thirdly, the PDF document contain 40 pages, could you kindly point out on which page indicate the sourced sentence as you have about 20 articles in total for reviewing, it would be difficult to read 40 pages x 20 = 800 pages of text just to find the sourced content claimed. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Smile (TV network)

Why did you say that I did not provide a reliable source? I said that 3 new shows are coming to this TV. --2601:205:C100:424D:71BE:3B8C:39A8:ADD4 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@2601:205:C100:424D:71BE:3B8C:39A8:ADD4: Greetings to you. Your edit, see here - [7] did not provide any source to support the content. "You said" - your words as the source" is not a independent reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Independent reliable source are usually comes from book or reputable newspaper. Please see reliable source info here WP:RS. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I'm not sure this is what you meant to do...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo:, Thank you for bringing this to my attention - it was meant for other page (I had 15/17 tabs opened) and click the wrong tab. The tag has been removed and self revert to original text. Apologies. Thanks again. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries; I figured as much! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1000 new page reviews in the last year, thank you very much for your help at New Pages Patrol! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Man Wei Chong

CASSIOPEIA, I had cited the page (Man Wei Chong).Santhulanistan (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Santhulanistan:, Greetings to you and thank you for informing of the above. First of all when start a new conversation on talk page do click "new section" on the menu bar to start a new thread/title. Secondly, you dont need to ping the editor if you write on his/her talk page but it apply on all other talk page (such as your talk page, article talk page, all other talk/discussion pages).

As for Draft:Man Wei Chong you have provided primary source but not third party independent reliable source - pls go back and reread I message to you earlier. Source from reliable newspaper (such as New Strait Times / Star in MY) would be considered third party independent reliable source. Once you have cited the inline citation, kindly let me know so I would review it and get it publishe. Please do visit Help:Wikitext (wikicode), for it will assist you on editing and communicating in Wikipedia. Have a good day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Santhulanistan: Thank you for the source provide and it has been review. You could find the article here Man Wei Chong. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

British Virgin Islands at the Commonwealth Games

Hi I couldn't find any sources. I just watched it happen live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikkCartwright (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NikkCartwright: Greetings to you and thank you for the message above. I believe are referring to 2018 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, AUS which you are watching live at the moment. You can added the content back when the source is available tomorrow in the newspaper. When citing from internet, pls click "cite" from the menu bar and fill in the fields accordingly. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NikkCartwright: Hi Just to let you know other editor has added the "sourced" content of the above on the page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:2018 Changchun Yatai F.C. season

Hi

Thanks for your kind reply. I think it should be done now, I have added inline citations that's related to the change of the stadium of the club this season.

@Peilin99:, Hi good afternoon. Thank you for providing the source. I have reviewed the article and you can find the article here in main space - 2018 Changchun Yatai F.C. season. Since you have source for the players name, I created a section for that in the article. Just fill in the names. Thank you for your contribution and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong information maligning Dalljet Kaur career.

The news about warren masilmony engagement is false. There are a lot of articles by Dalljiet which clearly states that this man has falsely given this article and has purposefully added this information on wikipedia to harm Dalljiet kaurs personal and professional life. He has set it on auto restore mode so that he gets publicity out of this false information. She has given articles and confirmed stating they never got engaged. [[User:Mumbai branch|Mumbai branch (talk) 5:36 pm, Today (UTC+10)

@Mumbai branch: Hi Good afternoon. Which page are you referring to? I have checked on Dalljet Kaur (if that is the page you refer to), I didnot edit the page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/dalljiet-kaur-rubbishes-engagement-rumours-admits-she-wants-to-get-married-again-in-this-exclusive-interview/amp/ Mumbai branch (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mumbai branch:, Hi [8] is based on spaculation, and [9] based on primary source. When you revert the edit do write a brief edit summary (always leave a edit summary) with the web page prior saving. If the edit got revert again, then invite the editor to the "article talk page" for discussion and try to come out with a solution/consensus agreement.(Make sure you ping them on the "article talk page" and on the editors talk page to notify them they are invited for a discussion. After "many" attempts of discussions and it still fails to come to a consensus agreement, you could bring the case to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and some administrators will look into the case. Do not not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hrs period on the same page for you will subject to 3-revert rule violation and you might be blocked. Hope the above help. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank u for ur revert. I tried everything .. tried giving edit summary. Tried talking to the the editor. But the upload keeps coming back on an auto system.

As Wikipedia is the first page to pop up when her name is written. Its maligning her image Personally and professionally. And if this keeps getting heighlighted the said persons purpose of his name being linked with her is achieved for him.

Please help us remove this link from her page so that no false information is given to the readers. We are dalljiet kaurs fans and wish her well. Kindly help us rectify this false information removed from her profile immediately.

All the articles she has personally given her interview so its not a speculation. They never got engaged. She has very specifically quoted herself while rubbishing the rumours in a lot of interviews following the rumors spread by someone. Mumbai branch (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mumbai branch:, Greetings. The speculation note was source from the edit of user 180.216.112.195. see text on source [10] "A failed marriage surely didn’t stop Dalljiet from finding love again. The actress, who rose to fame with her surprising transformation post-divorce and for her role in Barun Sobti and Sanaya Irani starrer show Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon is dating a TV producer based out of Australia, suggest reports.Speculations were rife that she met this person in an arranged marriage setup and had a secret engagement. But when on online leading entertainment portal contacted Dalljiet to confirm the development, the actress rubbished all such rumours "I have been meeting a lot of men in an arranged marriage set up because my parents have been asking me to but that doesn't mean I am engaged."

Secondly, you have not done everything yet as you have not taken on my recomandations as of my previous message. I have checked on the "article talk page", user 180.216.112.195 and 139.130.45.86's talk page, and there are no invitations for discussion or inform the users which you have a disagreement on content. I suggest you follow the recommendations for which would help your case. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mumbai branch:, Hi I have revert one "spaculation" edit of user 139.130.45.86 on Dalljet Kaur page and have invited both of you to have a discussion on the disagreement /to achieve a resolution the content dispute. Pls see you talk page and Dalljet Kaur talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mumbai branch:, Hi, Just to let you know the outcome from ANI that both pages, Dalljet Kaur and Warren Masilamony, have been protected for 3 months, only autoconfirmed editors could edit the page. "Autroconfirm" accounts are accounts/editors that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits (including deleted ones). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

LinkedIn Top Companies

Thanks for the many helpful adjustments and improvements on this new page.

I just added nearly 20 links so that passages in the story now connect to relevant Wikipedia pages. These new links cover everything from business terms (metrics, normalization, etc.) to countries (India, Brazil, etc.) to corporate-culture oddities (bouldering, fire pits, etc.)

I think this takes care of the (rightfully flagged) concern that the entry was underlinked. So I took the liberty of removing the underlinked tag. If you've got time to revisit the page and make sure that everything is as it should be, that's appreciated. At the very least, I wanted to let you know that your adirective has been quickly acted upon. GCA10 (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@GCA10: Good afternoon and thank you for the message. I had a look and unlinked the countries as they are all familiar names to most readers - see MOS:OVERLINK. Thank you for your contribution and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Copperopolis

Hi. I don't know how to provide the source of my changes to this article. Chicagorick38 (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've sent a link for my changes to this article to wiki@wikimedia.org via my gmail acct. Chicagorick38 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Chicagorick38: Greetings to you and thank you for the question. First of all, if you want to edit content, then just write it/change the content. You dont need to state the content is incorrect. Secondly, see below for adding inline citation from a independent reliable source

Instructions: Citing source from web - Do not copy and past the URL address and paste into the body text, but click "cite" on menu page and fill in the fields as per the Template: cite web and save when it is done).

Examples below:

To add an in-line text citation for an internet reference: <ref>{{cite web|url = |title = |accessdate = 15 April 2018|author=|last = |first = |work = |date = 15 April 2018|year=|archiveurl = |archivedate = }}</ref>
To add an in-line text citation for a paper reference: <ref name="Green">Green, William: ''Observers Aircraft'', page 228. Frederick Warne Publishing, 1991. ISBN 0 7232 3697 6</ref>

(note: remove nowiki tag when input the citation and please change the date as needed. See on source edit view mode.)

Hope the above help. Have a good day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Great information. Thank you. Chicagorick38 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Variety of finite semigroups

I've just seen the template added to this article. Two questions Regarding the additional references: I can certainly provide additionnal references. Those references would be the reference given by the only current reference (Pin's Mathematical Foundations of Automata Theory). Is it useful that I add to wikipedia other references, when those references can easily be found using the already given reference ? Regarding inline citation. Can someone give me an example of inline citation in a definition ? Because this article is mainly about two equivalent definitions of the same objects. And since those two definitions are given in the same book, it seems that any inline reference would be a repetition of the same book over and over. At best, I could indicate the page for each part of the definition. Does it present any interest ? Formally speaking, there are also examples in this article. However, even those examples come from the same book. Note that the «expert needed» box requires «Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article». I won't add the reason myself, I don't know it. CASSIOPEIA (talk · contribs), since you did add this box, can you please add a reason to it ? Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 3:37 am, Today (UTC+10)

@Arthur MILCHIOR: Greetings to you and thank you for the questions. I have copied you message from talk page and moved it here to here. Before I answer you the 2 question, here is the background on why additional source and citations are needed.

(a) Background on additional source and inline citations needed - Content added/edited in Wikipedia needs needs "inline citation" from significant coverage of independent "third pary" reliable source (in any language) for verification to gauge the nobility criteria is met and The articles's inline citation is the WP:BURDEN which it is on the person adding the information.}} Please note official website and source derives from the direct subject/author is considered primary source (not independent source). Independent reliable source are sources are those obtain from major newspaper, such as The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN news and etc. or source obtain from major publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). (Note: Wikipedia can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR). So only one PDF source does not meet significant coverage.

(b) Inline citations - inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. Please place after the sentence in the body text instead on the reference section - see

citing from internet source - see WP:CITEWEB and its template -see Template: cite web

Instructions: Citing source from web - Do not copy and past the URL address and paste into the body text, but click "cite" on menu page and fill in the fields as per the Template: cite web and save when it is done).

Examples below:

To add an in-line text citation for an internet reference: <ref>{{cite web|url = |title = |accessdate = 15 April 2018|author=|last = |first = |work = |date = 15 April 2018|year=|archiveurl = |archivedate = }}</ref>
To add an in-line text citation for a paper reference: <ref name="Green">Green, William: ''Observers Aircraft'', page 228. Frederick Warne Publishing, 1991. ISBN 0 7232 3697 6</ref>

(note: remove nowiki tag when input the citation and please change the date as needed. See on source edit view mode.)

(c) Expert needed - Since this is a mathematics/scientific article, the tag is placed for other Wikipedians who are well versed with subject matter to verify the article content.

I believe I have answer you questions above and thank you for your contribution. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Calivigny_Island

Thanks for your kind reply. I have rewritten the piece and added related inline citations. Can you review and restore the page.

@Caribbean historian:, Good day. I have made some changes on the article as below

Change disambiguate Hog Island to Hogg Island (wiki link to Hogg Island, Guyana). If that is the wrong link then unlink it.
Subject only bold once in the lead section on first occurance - see MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLD
Added "inline citations needed" tags for new content added by you.

You need to further provide inline citations where they are placed in the article and try add more wiki link in the article - see details in on wiki link here WP:MOSLINK.

Ping me when it is done. Thank you and have a wonderful day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Source

No problem on that. I just created reference tags for them. It was clogging up references by having the same thing listed twice. So a double reference source would work fine. Udar55 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Udar55: Thank you and appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Stub tags and cleanup

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like Pulaparthi Ramanjaneyulu which already has a specific stub tag. (On the other hand there was a lot else which needed fixing in that article: I moved it to a new title, made a redirect from his alternate name, fixed the incorrect sort key, mended the broken reference, sorted out the redlinked category). PamD 08:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: Hi, I must have not noticed the original stub tag already in place, and thanks for removing it. Notice the clean up and fixing up the article. Tank you and cheers!. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow

	Amazing
	Thank you so much for your wonderful edits on the 27 club graffiti, Cassiopeia!!! Forever Art (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Forever Art: You are welcome and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

All Wikipedias now have Page Previews.
The iOS and Android apps now have synced reading lists. This means you can save articles to a private list that can be seen on your other devices if you use the apps.
The icons in the 2010 wikitext editor have changed. [11]
The visual editor and the 2017 wikitext ask you to write an edit summary after you press Publish. This button now also shows an ellipsis. This is to show that pressing Publish is not the last step. [12]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 April. It will be on all wikis from 26 April (calendar).

Meetings

You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 24 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 25 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

<mapframe> will come to most Wikipedias in May. This means that you can put interactive maps in the articles. Nine Wikipedias that use a strict version of flagged revisions will not get this feature in May. [13]
The rollback function could change. This was a German community request. All editors with rollback rights can leave feedback on the proposed solution. The last day to leave feedback is 4 May (UTC).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

added a line in Elizabeth Bishop - Tributes

Hi, I apologize for not being very practical with wikipedia. Unfortunately I am not able to cite a source, because poetry is simply played in the movie. The source, or the proof, is the movie itself. So, maybe it's right to have it removed, if it's uncorrect by Wikipedia parameters. Thank you

@46.102.112.208: Good day. Thank your for the message above. Understand that you did not have source as the poetry was played in the movie. However, Wikipedia policy is that all content added/edited in the page/article need to support by independent reliable source. You are welcome to added it back if you could find the source to support it. Happy editing and let me know if anything else I could help you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicolas Moussiopoulos

The page, in it's current form, is terrible. I recognize that. But, you added 6 maintenance tags and 10 "citation needed" tags to it. I have a few issues with that which I'd like to bring up. Firstly, and the main one, it's overtagging (WP:OVERTAG). At least use {{multiple issues}} when you add that many tags. Second, the article has absolutely no sources, so tagging every other line of text with {{cn}} is excessive and likely discouraging to the editor who created the page. Not only this, you also added an "unsourced section" tag into both sections. The article, after you had finished with it, looked like this. I noticed that you spread it out over 4 edits (a few minutes apart), the first 3 being additions of maintenance tags individually, which I found a bit strange but not especially concerning. Pinging Ringerfan23 for comment. Please be aware I do not intend this message to be uncivil, and have tried to ensure that no wording in it might be perceived as such. Vermont (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: Good day. Thank you for your comment. I have done just using normal tag (on top of the page) previosly on other pages; in most cases, new editors have no idea what they should do even I explained and provide instructions int their talk page. When I start tagging citation needed, they usually respond with "thank message" and provide the inline citations as it need to be. You might have different experience that I have where you checked a page as review even without a source to verify the content claimed or tag anything on the page to inform the editor. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your response correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that overtagging will cause the new editors to thank you and provide citations? Also, I have never reviewed a non-disambiguation page with no sources without at least adding a "no references" tag. Vermont (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: I didnt say that overtagging cause editors to thank me. Please read the message again. Also check how many editors tag this Nicolas page. You have reviewed a page without source - see here [14] - as you would see you didnt response to my question. We dont seem see the same frequency anyway. Thank you for your suggestion and pointer. I am off for my gym workout and have a nice day. Pen off CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not respond to your question on my talk page as I had addressed the concerns you brought up. Those are two articles that, when I passed through when new page patrolling, I noticed you had moved them to drafts and marked them for CSD. So, knowing they would be deleted, I marked them patrolled, thereby removing them from the queue. I hope this explanation helps.

I'm sure you see how your additions were overtagging. I just ask that you refrain from doing so in the future. Other editors did add tags to the Nicolas page, but they added them conservatively. You added unreferenced section tags to every section, and 10 citation needed tags to a total of 13 sentences. I had my NPP permissions removed a while back for overtagging, and have since become increasingly aware and conscious of such issues.

Also; could you clarify what "When I start tagging citation needed, they usually respond with "thank message" and provide the inline citations as it need to be." means? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Except inserting four maintenance tags and a citation needed tag after every sentence, coupled with two additional section maintenance tags for each unsourced section – there is a point where all of this becomes redundant to each other, and unfortunately, I think you may have crossed it here, CASSIOPEIA. Generally, if an article needs more sources, a single {{ref improve}} is enough; if it's a BLP, you can use {{BLP sources}}, but in no case is it ever necessary to use both ref improve and BLP sources, which is what you did here. If the majority of the article is sourced, but only a few statements here and there need citations, you can use {{citation needed}} tags to flag the unsourced statements, but you generally don't need to use citation needed tags on every sentence if you already have a ref improve tag. The reason why this is problematic is because overtagging articles can demoralize the new editors that create them – a WP:BITE issue – which is precisely what we want to avoid when doing new page patrol. Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Good day. Thank you for the above advice. I used to just tag {{ref improve}} and sent message to the editor talk page explaining notability depends on independent reliable source need for verification and also instruction on how to cite the source. My experience is that more than 90% the either recreate the page or move the draft to main space without providing source. I start to take citation needed and got respond from some editor sending "thank message" then later they provide the inline citation. My gauge is that it is hard for new editor to read through the amount of text/info on Wikipedia and know exactly what to do, (we all have been there the information in Wikipedia is a little overwhelming at first and still I am and will be learning about Wikipedia in years to come with the amount of information in Wikipedia) and by knowing the citation need message on the body text, they figured out source need to provide on body text. My aim is to help the editors in specific way on how to edit/improve the article, and by no mean to bite them. I am not refuted that I might be on overtagging on source needed messages. I can appreciate the Wikipedia open concept that everyone can contribute and provide knowledge to the world but as Wikipedia's cornerstone based on independent reliable source to verify of a subject notability, to educate new editors on this subject is important. Just as I understand the history/reasons behind U.S. 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms, but a gun control bill on checking buying background might deem necessary at times. As one of my user page stalkers (I welcome that), you would know how I interact with the editors for I dont bite them but present facts/reasons; if I had done a mistake, I apologized; and if someone educate me/show me certain thinggs/instructions/tips, I thanked them. Here is one of recent examples where I worked with an editor on citing source User talk:Lewisbudd17#2017-18 Jersey Premiership and Jersey Football Combination moved to Draft:2017-18 Jersey Premiership and Draft:Jersey Football Combination where I tagged "citation needed" message with good outcome. @Vermont: I dont mean to move off so quickly a few hours ago. I have not been very well for the last 10 days and just recovered from illness last night. It was a beautiful late morning here in Sydney, just dont want to miss the run to the gym before the rain/colder weather sets in later. All in all, I am not sure you have answered my question but I hope we could get to a better frequency of communication in the future if we happen to cross path again and have a good day. Thank you. pen off. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

Discussion report: The future of portals

Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

Your participation in this conversation would be helpful. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Good day and thank you for the ping. I have responded to the request. Have a nice day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Divisor sum identities page

I do not understand the "expert needed" tag since there was nothing added to my talk page about this. If you mean an expert on the subject matter, then I will unabashedly tell you that I'm it having collected and proved most of the key identities in the first section in my own reasearch. I understand that the introduction needs to be more formally re-written. I will handle this. However, I disagree about the lack of inline references. Please respond on my talk page! Maxie (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Maxieds: Greetings to you and thank you for the questions above. Please see the below

(A) inline citation needed - If you have done your research then the source need to be included on the body text with inline citations.

Content added/edited in Wikipedia needs needs "inline citation" from independent "third party" reliable source (in any language)  for verification to gauge the nobility criteria is met. The articles's inline citation is the WP:BURDEN which it is on the person adding the information. Please note official website, records of sport events or individual player records  are consider primary source and not independent source, and social network source such as facebook, twitter, instagram, imbd and etc are considered NOT reliable source and can not be used for citing.  Independent reliable source are sources are those obtain from major newspaper, such as The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN news and etc. or source obtain from major publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).  (Note: Wikipedia  can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR).

citing from internet source - see WP:CITEWEB and its template -see Template: cite web

Instructions: Citing source from web - Do not copy and past the URL address and paste into the body text, but click "cite" on menu page and fill in the fields as per the Template: cite web and save when it is done). Examples below:

To add an in-line text citation for an internet reference: <ref>{{cite web|url =https://www.mmafighting.com/2018/4/5/17203890/watch-conor-mcgregor-throw-a-dolly-through-ufc-223-fighter-bus-window |title = Watch Conor McGregor throw a dolly through UFC 223 fighter bus window|accessdate = 15 April 2018|author=|last =Al-Shatti |first = Shaun |publication = mmafighting|date = 15 April 2018|archivedate =15 April 2018 }}</ref>
To add an in-line text citation for a paper reference: <ref name="Green">Green, William: ''Observers Aircraft'', page 228. Frederick Warne Publishing, 1991. ISBN 0 7232 3697 6</ref>

(note: remove nowiki tag when input the citation. Fill the info and change the date as needed. See on source edit view mode.)

(B) Expert Needed - As this is a mathematics/scientific article, the tag for "expert needed" is for other Wikipedians who are the subject matter to run through the article rightness of the equations/formulas/functions claimed in the article.

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Update / New Questions:

The only thing on the page divisor sum identities that doesn't have citations to proofs is for the first section. Since you wanted someone else who knows this material well to look at it, would you remove the expert needed flag if I give the short (RE: obvious) proofs of these identities in that section? Maxie (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Maxieds: Hi, Greetings to you and thank you for the question above. There are a few sections are not cited and not only the section you mention, do your best to cite where possible. Secondly, most of the reviewers do not that the technical expertise to such level of to verify or to understand the content of your article as it is very highly technical, so expert on this subject matter would be best to verify the rightness of the content claimed. It is normal to have tags in article where certain areas, such as need for independent sources, copy editing, need more categories and etc to be placed in an article even for article have already published. This tags placed there is to inform and invite other Wikipedians assistance to better the article since Wikipedia work/content is the collaboration of many editors which no one own the content sorely. Another area you might need to work on is the lead section. The lead is the first paragraph of the page, where it serves as an "introduction" to the article and a "summary" of its most important contents of the page - Please refer to MOS:LEAD where there are guidelines on as how a lead is written. Thank you and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Tech News: 2018-18