Liance

Question from Thankful Button (18:27, 10 September 2024)

Hey Liance, Thanks for reaching out. Yes, it has been a challenge to figure out where to make my first edits. I'm a professional designer, so thought I could help by converting jpgs to pngs, but apparently you need to say that you are the owner of the file, before re-uploading the new images. I've made three edits to this article, adding three sources. Would you mind taking a look to see if I did things correctly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_apple --Thankful --Thankful Button (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thankful Button! Thanks for contributing to Cooking apple :) Are you attempting to upload a new image or modify an existing file on the page? The procedure can become a bit complicated if you're attempting to overwrite an existing image, and generally there isn't a need to convert images from their original format if it's already suitable. Best, ~Liance^talk 18:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Liance,

I was hunting for things that I could edit and found this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_inappropriate_JPEG_compression

It did look very complicated, so I gave up and eventually found Cooking apples, which seems to need a lot of help with the formatting of sources. I only hope I'm doing it right.

Thankful Thankful Button (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thankful Button: Unfortunately I don't have any experience in the realm of file conversion/overwriting on-wiki so I'm not sure how helpful I'd be in providing further guidance! You could ask other editors at The Teahouse who I'm sure would have more experience in that regard.

You're on the right track for editing references but it seems like you're entering them as plaintext when we have more specific templates that would be preferred. WP:INTREF3 has a good guide for getting started using these templates (assuming you're using the source editor). Hope this is helpful and let me know if you have any further questions. ~Liance^talk 18:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

(You can also check out WP:REFVISUAL for Visual editor instructions) ~Liance^talk 19:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liance,

I'll dig into the templates for references.

At least I got my toe in the water today.

)

Thankful Thankful Button (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome message

Hi Liance, I think I have seen you use a Welcome message that tailored to AfC submitters (references the draft, provides links about creating new articles, etc). I know I have run across it but can't readily provide an example and may have you confused with another reviewer. If I have it right and it is you, can you point me to the template? S0091 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey S0091, you got it right. I've been doing a "trial run" of a welcome message I created myself with links I've found to be most helpful to AfC submitters over the last 3-4 months, using template User:Liance/s/afcwelcome. I've gotten pretty good results in new editor engagement and users have found the links helpful. You're more than welcome to use or adapt it yourself if it fits your needs. Best, ~Liance^talk 19:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's great! You should consider making it an 'official' template and adding it to WP:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea - I was planning to introduce the template at the AfC talk page first to get some feedback prior to making it an "official" one, which I'll definitely get around to soon. Also hoping to get some input there on adding an option to AFCH to leave the welcome message prior to a decline to "soften the blow" for newer editors who submit drafts. ~Liance^talk 19:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same about notifying AfC and possibly adding it to AFCH, Liance. You obviously have my support. S0091 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated S0091 - I've posted it at WT:AFC to gather some feedback! ~Liance^talk 20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Thankful Button (22:03, 10 September 2024)

Hey Liance, OK, I went in and changed the manual references to templated citations. And apparently didn't save often enough. Seems like all my text was scrubbed for using cookbooks as references? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_apple I understand not sharing recipes on Wikipedia, however, if you are defining what a baking apple is, seems appropriate to me, to include a test for assessing what makes a baking apple. Pretty discouraging! Thankful Button --Thankful Button (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thankful Button: I'm sorry to hear that! Looking into the revision history, your changes were reverted by editor Awesome Aasim citing WP:NOTCOOKBOOK as the rationale. I assume they had issues with the wording in your edit(s) not directly reading like that of an encyclopedia. I would read the policy that they cited and reach out to the reverting editor to ask for suggestions. I know it can be discouraging to have your changes removed but I'm sure Aasim would be willing to work with you on what would be an appropriate next move. Best, ~Liance^talk — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Thankful Button, chiming in as well. As an encyclopedia, we generally prefer to maintain a specific tone, that is less instructional and more informational. I also got a bit confused with the manual citations... I am glad that you are trying to fix those as well. Wikipedia lingo can be hard for newcomers, don't worry. WP:NOTCOOKBOOK states that we are not an instructional manual, but I do think that what you added is helpful advice nonetheless! Just because Wikipedia doesn't want it, doesn't mean that it is bad information. Maybe reword from an encyclopedic tone? Or maybe you can share your information on a sister Wikimedia project :) Awesome Aasim 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Liance and Awesome Aasim,

Thank you both for writing.

I think having something in the entry about testing the apples is valuable and would be helpful to people looking for this type of information. Most of the information on the page is a series of lists, but cooking apples don't strictly fall into neat categories. This is why a test is helpful. My source is Alice Waters who's done a lot of work rethinking source ingredients.

If we were doing an entry on copper, wouldn't it be appropriate to include a test that told people how to determine if the metal they had was copper? I think the same is true for cooking apples.

This is my original entry:

"To test the baking qualities of a particular apple, cut a half inch wedge of apple, peel it and place it in a saucepan with just enough water to cover it. Bring the water to a boil and then simmer, until the apple is tender. Prod the apple to see if it has maintained its shape. Taste the apple to see how much flavor it has maintained and how much sugar it will need. "

New entry:

There are many apples that have been cultivated to have the firmness and tartness desired for cooking. Yet each variety of apple has unique qualities and categories such as "cooking" or "eating" are suggestive, rather than exact. A simple test can help determine how any apple will perform once it is cooked. Cut and peel a half inch wedge of apple, and simmer in water until the apple is tender. Prod the apple to see if it has maintained its shape. Taste the apple to see how much flavor it has maintained and how much sugar it will need. (With citation)

Also wondering if it might make sense to have this in a separate section.

Let me know what you think,

Thankful Button Thankful Button (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thankful Button: That's a good start! I probably would have written the latter part of your new entry like so:

"How an apple will perform once cooked is tested by simmering a half inch wedge in water until tender, then prodding to see if its shape is intact. The apple can then be tasted to see how its flavor has been maintained and if sugar should be added"

Essentially the same, but the tone is more encyclopedic rather than instructional. It can be hard to get in the habit of writing like that, but it's what readers expect to see in an article. The Cooking apple article itself could definitely use some cleanup as well (for ex. I'm not sure if we really need the blockquote in the lead section) so if you're up to it, you could be WP:BOLD and give rewriting some other segments a shot too! ~Liance^talk 19:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much Liance. Will work on it some more this afternoon.

Inching my way up the learning curve...

Thankful Thankful Button (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Liance,

I've updated two paragraphs in the summary for "Cooking apple" and created true citations for all the references on that page.

Do you think there are enough citations on the page to take down the banner at the top asking for more citations?

Here's a the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_apple

I appreciate your help,

Thankful Button Thankful Button (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thankful Button: Thank you for your contributions! I can see the improvements you've made to Cooking apple and they look great!

Unfortunately I'm not sure if we can remove the banner template quite yet. Per our verifiability policy having a citation for each stated fact would be most optimal. Currently the lead section still has several paragraphs that are unsourced. In many cases having a citation for every stated fact can be extremely difficult to achieve, but I think we may need a few more citations before we can remove that template. You can try adding more citations to that section to back up the stated facts, or remove information if it's unsourced and you don't think it deserves inclusion in the article. ~Liance^talk 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Request on 19:44:36, 11 September 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Upstreamtech

• Upstreamtech (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Liance,

I was wondering if I could trouble you to help me with understand a rejected article, so I can improve it to be wiki-worthy. It is the: Articles for creation: Modified Philip Dunne Infiltrometer

The reason stated for the rejection was the references need to be: In-Depth, Reliable, Secondary, & Independent.

I'm a little confused on that as one of the references is an ASTM Standard see: (which seems like it would meet all of the requirements) and two are academic research papers.

The Modified Philip-Dunne Infiltrometer is an infiltrometer similar to the ones listed here: which also cites ASTM and Research papers.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank-you,

Rick

Upstreamtech (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Upstreamtech (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Upstreamtech: As you correctly pointed out, yes we do indeed expect references to be in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. Looking at the references you cited, the ASTM reference is a primary source, not a secondary one, as the source describes the standard itself from the governing standards organization, rather than providing commentary from a secondary, independent point of view. Reference 2 is a research paper while 3 is a thesis where the subject is directly described by authors involved in the creation/development of the subject, making them non-independent, primary sources. To meet our notability requirements we need to see multiple references that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. Hope this helps. ~Liance^talk 13:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Liance,

Thank-you for explaining Primary vs Secondary sources. That makes complete sense. I appreciate your time. Thanks, Rick

Upstreamtech (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Question from Linkfandos (sorry i have no idea how that works)

Hello!

I've seen that you rejected the submission of the draft page i made. (Cryptid crush) Could you help me understand and fix what is wrong with the page please? Thank you!

(Also i don't really know how chat works on wikipedia, so if you want you can add me on discord using this username -> linkfandosyt

thank you!!) Linkfandos (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Linkfandos: Hey there. I've left comments on Draft:Cryptid Crush and your talk page with the reasoning for both times your draft has been declined. I also left a link to notability information for video games. Those resources are a good place to start - if you have any questions please let me know. Best, ~Liance^talk 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey!

Using the sources you gave me i edited some stuff in the page, including a lot of references, mostly pushing on mentions of the devs and the kind of game that is Cryptid crush-

I submitted the page again but got refused :(

I have absolutely no idea of what to add/edit, despite the time i spent searching on the Notability and sources page... Do you know what i should change to make the page valid?

Thank you! Linkfandos (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Linkfandos: We require multiple sources that demonstrate in-depth, independent, secondary and reliable coverage of the subject (more info at WP:NN). You'll need to include multiple references that meet those requirements in your article before resubmitting, otherwise the article won't be accepted. ~Liance^talk 18:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from PascalBeats (04:17, 14 September 2024)

Hello, can you edit your profile image here? --PascalBeats (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@PascalBeats: Generally we don't have profile pictures for user accounts on Wikipedia. You're free to upload an image at WP:File upload wizard but this is generally for project-related purposes and requires you to meet the content guidelines. ~Liance^talk 18:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

William Green NZ composer

I'd be grateful if you could check on this again. This is the article you removed from the encyclopedia. I haven't had a response from you. Another user said on my talkpage that his notabilty was overlooked because the link to the NZ Govt encyclopedia didn't appear to be considered. Could you please reinstate the page? I don't have the skills or experience to do so. Thank you Kelly222 (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kelly222: Your draft article was declined because the musician notability criteria was not met at the time of my review. I took every reference supplied into consideration. Your article was also previously unpublished from the mainspace due to similar notability concerns. Please take a look at WP:NMUSIC and familiarize yourself with the relevant criteria. If you're able to make the required changes to meet the criteria you're welcome to resubmit your draft. Best, ~Liance^talk 16:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Could you please tell me if his inclusion in the NZ Govt encyclopedia meets the requirement. If so, could you reinstate the page. Kelly222 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kelly222: Have you reviewed WP:NMUSIC? Per those guidelines I don't think inclusion in that resource directly signifies that a subject is notable. Please take a look yourself - you need to identify multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources with significant coverage of your subject. ~Liance^talk 14:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

yes I have read the article you refer to. I disagree with you. I have cited multiple sources. How should we resolve your apparent insistence that he is not a notable NZ composer? Kelly222 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kariko L. Donavel (22:28, 17 September 2024)

Hi, i would like to add my biography to my page how would i add? --Kariko L. Donavel (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kariko L. Donavel: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography prior to attempting to write about yourself - creating autobiographies are strongly discouraged and you will likely face challenges in getting it published to our article mainspace if you choose to do so. Writing about yourself through the standard article creation process is still possible but again, will likely come with unexpected difficulties. ~Liance^talk 23:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"Eh! Steve!" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Eh! Steve! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Eh! Steve! until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't responded to me

Please respond. It's been quite a few days. Another user also thinks the mention of William Eric Green in the NZ govt encyclopedia is notable enough. Please reconstitute his page. Kelly222 (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been on here for a few days. The decline rationale for your draft was indicated on your talk page. Once you've resolved the issue(s) you are welcome to resubmit. ~Liance^talk 00:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a subpage of yours

Are you aware of the complete and utter madness going on at User talk:Liance/Horngus of a Dongfish? Should I G3 it? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mwwv: Good lord... I've made it a redirect since I fear it'll just be recreated if I were to delete the page. I'll keep an eye on it going forward. Appreciate the heads up. ~Liance^talk 00:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, anytime! mwwv ^converse∫_edits 00:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Confusion in Referencing

I am editing since 2020 but I still have doubts in footnotes and obviously I have tried every tricks and tips to better my article and referencing skills. And as well as I have read all the rules and regulations of references and everything. But still I am very confused in Referencing, please help me and don't suggest me any Wikipedia article that will help me, it doesnt atleast help to me. Thanks Regards, Ved Sharma Kharavela Deva Kharavela Deva (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)