User talk:Chidgk1

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Forests in Turkey, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forests in Turkey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Forests in Turkey you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Forests in Turkey for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afşin-Elbistan power stations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please slow down with PROD nominations, or at least spread them out across multiple days? Each PROD has to be manually reviewed, so having these additional ~50 expiring all at once is less than ideal. Also note that reliable external links count as sources for WP:BLPPROD as outlined at that page, so articles like Mubarak Ata Mubarak should not be tagged as such. Curbon7 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, I reverted all four school articles you Prodded on the 24th. You need to Cite a valid reason for deletion, and as I'm pretty sure you've been told before, deletion processes do NOT apply to the article at hand, but rather to the subject of the article. WP:BEFORE is mandatory. Schools aren't automatically notable; you are absolutely correct in that. But simply stating that does not tell us anything about how that applies to those specific article. Further, simply being parochial, whether you mean that in the sense used in list title, or its formal general meaning, is not a reason to delete. You need to explain how it does not meet WP:NLIST. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry re BLPPROD it was the first time I used it so had not noticed that rule. Re PROD I have no objection if you review them over several weeks or months. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chidgk1,

It is not helpful to start a lot of AFD discussions and use a cookie-cutter deletion rationale, I did a search and it does not seem to be notable, that doesn't demonstrate that WP:BEFORE has been done. You can't expect discussion participants to do more work than you spent evaluating articles and assessing their sourcing. I could rightfully close these all as Procedural closes because it looks like you just copied and pasted the same deletion rationale on a lot of AFDs you started without putting any effort into the process at all. What sources came up in your search? Is there a possible ATD? Provide more useful information here.

You need to read WP:BEFORE and go through all of the checks for every single article you are considering nominating and write a specific deletion rationale that relates to that particular article. No one is getting brownie points for the most articles deleted so take your time and do the nomination process carefully and thoughtfully. Sound good? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz I don’t expect brownie points but if I and others were to put in as much effort as you suggest I wonder how many articles would be deleted each year. I suspect that most of us would get discouraged and give up on deletions. I realize that many of the 83 thousand completely unsourced articles are about notable subjects and that Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles are valiantly working through them, but I suspect thousands are not.

You might ask why it matters. I don’t know how Google search works, but might not thousands of rubbish articles hanging around for years drag down the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and thus the visibility of articles I care about? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1 Articles being unsourced is not a reason for deletion, see WP:NEXIST. You need to do a good faith WP:BEFORE before nominating, and present what you were able to find in your nomination statement: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Where possible, also please make use of The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to various subscription databases of additional resources. Not every resource available in that collection will always be relevant in every situation, so it is not necessary to exhaustively check every database, but there are many resources which may be useful for specialized or older topics that might not Google well." TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chidgk1,

I'm back! Lucky you. I'm going through a week's worth of AFDs and I'd like to ask you to slow down the pace of how many articles you nominate for deletion every day (or every week). Please pace yourself and don't overload a day's log of AFDs. Ideally, you are doing thorough BEFOREs on each article before you nominate it which is time-consuming for you and each participant to a discussion has to look for sources as well. We have a limited pool of editors who participate in AFD discussions and we already have to relist discussions, often several times, because of low participation. We don't want our editors to be overwhelmed with the volume of nominations. Unless the content is violating copyright or BLP guidelines, there is really no rush to delete articles so please pace yourself and nominate articles carefully and thoughtfully. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thank you and the other admins for your hard work on this. Thanks to you and the editors commenting on AfD the number of completely unsourced articles of interest to Wikiproject Turkey has been considerably decreased from the original 300. I cannot prove that has a long-term benefit, but given that AI tools nowadays are increasingly trying to integrate fact-checking of their answers I suspect it will eventually be worthwhile. Because presumably Sirri, Alexa etc mine Wikipedia quite often. And for example history here is sometimes used in political arguments, so even seemingly obscure facts can be contentious.

However you are right that these particular unsourced articles do not cause short-term problems. Sometimes I cite articles myself - for example I spent a fair amount of time adding many cites to Şefkat Tepe. Anyway I will not nominate any more AfD for a few weeks at least. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaa 2601:840:467F:D370:9928:BD42:9E90:9539 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şşş Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vadym Sukharevsky, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Badger is the first commander of the Unmanned Systems Forces? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vadym Sukharevsky. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vadym Sukharevsky), 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.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chidgk1,

If you weren't aware, the notability guideline for geographic locations is WP:GEOLAND. So, populated locations without a lot of supporting sources can still be considered notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Sorry I don’t remember Khanasor. My question in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatay, Konak was whether I could create an article for a legally recognized populated place with no cites at all.

It seems that the answer is that all I would need is a single cite showing that a particular Mahallah#Turkey is legally recognized - so 32,261 articles according to Villages of Turkey. Actually it seems that on Turkish Wikipedia someone has already created all the articles with a bot.

Anyway I was just curious - I am definitely not intending to do such a thing. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]