User talk:SonOfYoutubers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 30)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous rather than factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time.
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 when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, SonOfYoutubers! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy reading some collaborative fiction like SCP Foundation, but Wikipedia isn't a fiction site. We'll write about notable examples like SCP, but we don't indulge our creative sides on here. Fences&Windows 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by IVORK was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Astroworld_Festival_crowd_crush instead.
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 when they have been resolved.
— IVORK Talk 04:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Florida Velodrome Association[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Florida Velodrome Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kpgjhpjm 05:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
-Liancetalk/contribs 08:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:SonOfYoutubers/sandbox[edit]

Information icon Hello, SonOfYoutubers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:SonOfYoutubers/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spife (January 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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:
Make sure you add references that meet 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:
Interesting subject but declining for now. While The Roman combination knife and spoon is a good source, blogs and commercial sites selling/auctioning a product are not reliable sources for notabilty.

See also WP:Articles for deletion/Knork (2nd nomination) which included Spife and the article before it was redirected to List of eating utensils#Combination utensils which unfortunately does not contain any useful sources.

With that said, pinging @Valereee: who may be interested in the subject. I will also look for additional 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.
S0091 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Spife has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Spife. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spife[edit]

Hi SonOfYoutubers, I did do some research but did not find anything in-depth about it from reliable sources. It was a good idea but not enough coverage available, as far as I can tell, to warrant an article about about it. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this will likely always be rejected (there's no other plausible sources I can find online other than the ones I listed), is it possible to make a large article about combined utensils as a whole? I could include spork, spife, knoon, etc? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm..take a look at List of eating utensils#Combination utensils (linked also in my decline). Some already have stand-alone articles (i.e. spork) but maybe it is a possibility for stand-alone titled "Combination eating utensils" or similar if there is enough in-depth coverage about them in general. I like the idea. My hunch is there may not be good enough sources online so would require library resources. I did use the WP:Library to search for spife but you do not have enough edits yet to gain access. Try searching and see what you can come with. Google Books might be helpful and there may be helpful sources (or clues to sources) in articles that already exist. S0091 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Valereee again because she specializes in culinary topics to get her thoughts. S0091 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, S0091, always interested in culinary subjects. If it were me, I'd focus on the ancient artifact, as that's almost certainly notable. Like, it would be nuts for anyone not to think something that old and that we know about isn't notable. Create a section on modern versions. When you have the third solid sigcov in RS, you can split it off.
Re: something on combination utensils. You definitely could, but you'd need at minimum to have someone authoritative discussing them as a subject. Like an academic, ideally. Which quite possibly is out there somewhere. If no one else is discussing them as a subject, it's something WP:SYNTHy or WP:OR to turn it into a subject. Valereee (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Can you link to the page where I can make the modern section? Can't quite find it. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SOY, you'd want to start the article on the Roman foldable spoon. There's a commercial source about a replica here but I guarantee you unless this is a hoax, there is academic coverage somewhere. Write the article about the artifact. Include a section on modern examples. Valereee (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh I understand, and I include spifes (modern ones) under the modern examples section? If so, got it. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Sporks, spifes, knoons, all under modern examples. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Valereee! I suspected you could offer a different approach. SOY, it is often better to expand existing articles rather than creating a new stand-alone article and generally better way to reach readers. S0091 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would edit an existing article, however, none match my subject. So I think I might have to create a new one. What should the title be? And, most importantly, how do I create a new article? My sandbox section is just an automatic link back to draft:spife, so idk. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about the title as that can be changed but see WP:COMMONNAME for the guide. You can create new sandboxes (also known as User subpages), see WP:USERSUBPAGE. When you move to an article you will choose a different title. For example, you can start with User:SonOfYoutubers/Utensils or even User:SonOfYoutubers/not sure (i.e. whatever) then once fleshed out move it to mainspace as Combination eating utensils if that is what makes sense for a name based on the sources. At anytime if you have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot about this, oops, but I rediscovered it and my interest has once again peaked. So, I am returning back to where I left off, and I will be trying to write a new article exclusively on combination utensils. I would like if you could perhaps guide me to ensure I don't run into as many issues as I had run into when I decided to try to make a spife article? I've made the new article here: User:SonOfYoutubers/Utensils - Wikipedia SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always start with the sources.
Always write the article from the sources, not the other way around. That is, read the sources first, and then in the article summarize what the sources say.. Do not write the article and then go try to find sources that will support what you've written. If you can't find sources, you won't be able to write an article.
Start first with the sources already at spork and splayd. Read all those sources, and write those sections of the article. Also look at the section at List_of_eating_utensils#Combination_utensils and the sources there; that's basically where you'll be spinning your article off from. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that seems like a good idea, thank you. I'll continue updating the page and hopefully be able to submit it for review as soon as I'm done. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I submit for review, I just wanted to verify with you if everything on the article looks good. I've added plenty of information, and I believe it's ready for publishing! User:SonOfYoutubers/Utensils - Wikipedia SonOfYoutubers (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Spife[edit]

Information icon Hello, SonOfYoutubers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Spife, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Spife[edit]

Hello, SonOfYoutubers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Spife".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Combination eating utensils[edit]

A tag has been placed on Combination eating utensils requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Fits A10 but multiple, duplicates, Spork, Splayd, List of Eating Utensils.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 03:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chain-melted state has been accepted[edit]

Chain-melted state, 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.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting my article! A side question, would you be interested in helping develop and edit it? I don't know much advanced chemistry or physics but am interested in contributing, which is the reason I made the article after I noticed it was not already an article on wikipedia. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SonOfYoutubers: well done for getting the article accepted! Are you aware of WP:DYK? Your article would make a great science-based contribution to one of these and would reach the Main Page if accepted. You need to think of a "hook" such as Substances in the chain-melted state display properties of both a solid and a liquid. (Probably rephrased to be more "hooky" - see the DYK page). I can help with the nomination if you run into difficulties.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, I wasn't aware that existed! I'm not quite sure how to necessarily implement it into that, as I've never done it before, so would you like to guide me through the process? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you follow the instructions at WP:DYKRULES, where there is a link to make the nomination of the article. The key is to choose a "hook" which will entice readers to click through to read your article. Take a look on the Main Page and you'll see the section where these appear. They usually get updated twice a day and drive literally thousands of people to read the linked articles (the boldface links). Since you have never nominated before, you don't need to worry about the quid pro quo part: just follow the nomination link and fill in the relevant pieces. This will place your nomination at first on the page Template_talk:Did_you_know. Take a look at that to see how things progress: the list is by date the article was promoted to mainspace, so yours would be included in those for 4 November.
The hook could be "... that being in a chain-melted state makes some metals be simultaneously liquid and solid?" See the source code for how this can be copy/pasted into the nomination. You are allowed to submit more than one suggested hook, called ALT1, ALT2 etc so experienced DYK folk can choose the one they think will be most likely to attract clicks. It is allowed for me to submit on your behalf but that's not in the spirit of you being bold! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you! I submitted it as a nomination, here: Template:Did you know nominations/Chain-melted state - Wikipedia Thanks for the help! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nelson M. Lopez has been accepted[edit]

Nelson M. Lopez, 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!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:La Granja (restaurant) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:La Granja (restaurant). Thanks! Greenman (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: La Granja (restaurant) (November 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford 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:
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:
Sources are largely the restaurant's own press releases. Other references contain merely incidental mentions insufficient to pass WP:SIGCOV.
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.
Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: La Granja (restaurant) (November 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by S0091 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Most of the sources are reliable (What Now Orlando for an example) and /or not independent or routine coverage and most are local. Nothing suggests this can meet the notability guidelines.
S0091 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit unfortunate, but I understand why. I thought it would be considered notable, but I guess not. What do I do with the draft since there's not much I can add to it? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of options. Abandoned drafts are deleted after six months so you can just leave it. I tend to lean towards this option because better sources could become available. The other is to request deletion now by placing {{db-author}} at the top. S0091 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of Indian chess players—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but there are 83 grandmasters? It even lists so in another part of the article. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, I mistakenly added an 'a' at the end of masters on one of the headings. That was a typo, I meant to just alter 82 to 83. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rahul Srivatshav Peddi has been accepted[edit]

Rahul Srivatshav Peddi, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1972 Peruvian anchoveta crisis has been accepted[edit]

1972 Peruvian anchoveta crisis, 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.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Fine work on Combination eating utensils. A joy to read. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very, VERY appreciated!!! Hopefully I can continue improving my writing and articles. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chain-melted state[edit]

On 12 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chain-melted state, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that being in the chain-melted state makes some metals behave as a liquid and solid at the same time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chain-melted state. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chain-melted state), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astroworld Festival crowd crush[edit]

Hi SonOfYoutubers, this article (as you note) is huge so it will take at least a week to c/e. There'll likely be lots of cleanup work to do as well, which isn't really my field. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for taking on the task! I understand the massive-ness of the article, so I wish you much luck. If anything, I'm more than happy to help, although I should note that, for some reason, whenever I edit big articles (upwards of ~50,000 bytes?), my browser lags. So, usually, for bigger articles, I need to edit in bursts. But, either way, I'm glad to help whenever possible! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; that would be great. I've moved the subsection about previous crowd crushes to the talk page as off-topic. I'm now thinking of further divvying-up the "Timeline" --> "Crush" subsection; I've already hived off most of the eyewitness reports to another subsection. My thought is to separate the events onstage from the crush timeline; clearly the two are linked but having them thus might be easier for the reader to follow. What do you think?
I understand about the browser lag; I find editing section-by-section makes life easier. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good decision overall. One thing I think should be removed a bit are the very individual timestamps that are shown in the timeline; I don't think there's much reasoning to be describing every single little detail, which is even recommended by a Wikipedia article (I don't remember which one) about getting just the right amount of detail, not too vague, but not too exact. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's too much detail, which I've been reducing; we don't need to know which song was being performed... but I think having the times there can help the reader know how quickly the events occurred and under what circumstances. I'll divide the text later, then we'll see where to go from there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 09:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good. I think, if to show the quickness of the event, we could just outright say it. Like "in the next several minutes, several separate incidents occurred in which guests suffered injuries, such as..." and give some examples. I think that could work. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as everything is properly cited I'm fine with that; however, that's getting away from copy-editing. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. I guess this article just has a lot of problems beyond the capabilities of copy-editing. I guess that's just what happens when people rush to document an event, sadly. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(←) There's a few uncited paragraphs; one in "Onstage events" (new per above) and two in "Immediate response". These can be removed per WP:VERIFY if they can't be cited within a certain time (suggest a few months). I've removed a few uncited names of real-life people per WP:BLP; I'm not happy having uncited RL names in an article of this nature. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems completely fair to me. For the uncited sources in "Onstage events", I found this source: Seven dead victims from Astroworld Festival were in one section of the audience, Washington Post investigation shows - Washington Post, where it says, "Three concertgoers who died appeared unconscious in a pile of other fallen fans in the south quadrant only 16 minutes into the show, according to a video reviewed by The Post. The concert continued for nearly another hour." I'm wondering if this supports the sentence in the third paragraph, "According to Chief Peña, most of the deaths likely occurred after 9:30 p.m. but according to forensic analysis of videos from crowd experts for The Washington Post, at least one victim later declared dead was seen falling under a mass of people at the concert’s opening.", as well as the sentence, "Three others who died were seen unconscious in a pile of fans by at least 9:16 p.m..." After further reading the third paragraph, as a whole, it appears this source supports the entire paragraph, so should I proceed and cite it? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead; I'll be back on a little later to continue the c/e so I may check an cite it. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source, removed the unsourced "According to chief pena, most deaths occurred after 9:30..." because I could not find any source stating that they said that, and I reworded a bit because some of the sentences looked slightly plagiarized or too close to the original wording in the source. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering if this image could be included, as there appears to be a lack of images on the article for visuals: File:2021 Astroworld Festival Aerial Image.png - Wikimedia Commons SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; always good to avoid copyvio text. I think the aerial image would give some useful context; maybe in the first section. I've moved another off-topic para to the talk page; it's mostly about what Scott did next. The refs are there too but I don't think they'd be very useful here. Btw, do you think we should move this discussion to the article's talk or are you happy to keep it here? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends; if you want more people to help or participate, moving to the talk page could work, but if you just want a small collaboration, you can keep it here. I'll continue fixing the source issues, such as lack or excessive citations, and possibly plagiarized text, along with some grammar edits. And I'll add that aerial image. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem then, I'm not looking for further help so we'll keep it here. I just didn't want to clutter your talk unnecessarily. Thank you for fixing the sources; I've noticed they seem to be bundled at the end of the paragraphs, so they probably cover different parts of the whole paragraph. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind, but, unrelated, but how do you create archives on talk pages? I see so many people have them but idk how lol. Anyways, back on topic, I've noticed that too with the sources being all bundled at the end, so I've tried reading the sources and distributing them more evenly to the sentences that they support, but sometimes it gets difficult with locked sources. But I use archives to help a bit with that and stuff like 12ft ladder. Imo, my aim to reduce the article to 150,000 bytes. I don't see any reasoning for it to be, even right now, as large as it is. It's too long to read comfortably and excessively in-depth. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, locked sources are a problem; I can sometimes get around that by using a Javascript-disabled browser, the Internet Archive, or sometimes reading the page source will work. For help with talk-page archiving, see Help:Archiving a talk page; I use a bot to archive mine, feel free to look around there. I'm getting about halfway down now so hopefully I can reduce it a little more. You might be able to split some of the content into its own article; possibly the Investigation and Lawsuits section could be split off with added context; see WP:SPLIT. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 10:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That actually seems like a good idea to split the investigation and lawsuits, because I think the crush should be focused on, you know, the actual crush and some aftermath, but mostly on the crush itself. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Aftermath of the Astroworld Festival crowd crush could be viable? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(←) "Aftermath" seems a bit dramatic but I can't think of an alternative right now. I think that title would be a good starting point, and moving most of the later material would help clarify the main points for the reader. There may be more scope to reduce the current size of article; lower sections tend to be less-well maintained than material higher up, though I am being quite conservative with my c/e. If there are still investigations, prosecutions or private legal actions pending, there will be more material to add. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Effects of the Astroworld Festival crowd crush? You can technically include the deaths, the lawsuits, the legal actions, the effects on Travis Scott's career, and the elimination of Astroworld Festival as a whole as part of the article. Then, the bottom section of the main article can be reordered to have the heading "Effects" with main article template to link to Effects of the Astroworld Festival crowd crush, with the subheadings "Deaths and injuries", "Lawsuits", "Criminal prosecution", and "Sponsors (or something like that)". SonOfYoutubers (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that title would be better and the article could always be moved if needed; perhaps "Legal actions arising from the Astroworld crowd crush"? Anyway I've now finished my copy-edit sooner than i thought. I've done a bit of refs-fixing and jiggering about, so it's in better shape now, though to be honest, I've seen a lot worse. I hope it's been useful to you (and the reader, of course). Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many, MANY thanks for the help. I'll continue looking for ways to fix the article, as it still has a lot to go. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nelson M. Lopez for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nelson M. Lopez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson M. Lopez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Polar Krush[edit]

Information icon Hello, SonOfYoutubers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Polar Krush, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Reflect Studios[edit]

Information icon Hello, SonOfYoutubers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Reflect Studios, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:La Granja (restaurant)[edit]

Information icon Hello, SonOfYoutubers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:La Granja (restaurant), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Car-Jitsu[edit]

Information icon Hello, SonOfYoutubers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Car-Jitsu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SonOfYoutubers&oldid=1219827064"