User talk:Rambley

This is Rambley's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 35 days

Question from PeterTrabant (20:23, 11 August 2025)

Have some additional facts to add to Wiki's listing for Robert (Bob) Gilruth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._Gilruth). Also things on paleoclimate as I find them. Thanks. Am a retired oceanographer. --PeterTrabant (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made your edits? I can't see your username in the 'View History' tab. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Dearwhere (14:15, 21 August 2025)

Hello! If you have any edits for this draft, I'd be very appreciative!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bud_Hobbs --Dearwhere (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the page has been published. Congratulations! Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Userwriter2h (10:17, 22 August 2025)

Hello sir how do I start an article for a solo musician who hasn't won award yet but is known for his reputation. --Userwriter2h (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the musician has a variety of reliable, secondary, independent sources covering them, see Help:Your first article. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Ants from Up There is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Ants from Up There is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Vmpage01 on User:Vmpage01 (08:26, 24 August 2025)

How can I make my page active in the search engine and share the reference link? --Vmpage01 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from RebeccaLior (01:10, 26 August 2025)

Hi, if I disagree with an edit that was made on an article, what is the best way for me to address that? I'm new so I don't want to ruffle any feathers or do it the wrong way. --RebeccaLior (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late response. If you disagree with an edit made, the best case scenario would be to undo the edit and start a discussion on the article's talk page. You should also provide a valid rationale in the edit summary for undoing the change. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pudding Racer (13:59, 26 August 2025)

Hello! I'm excited to be part of Wikipedia, and thanks for being my mentor. I'll try not to ask too many noob questions :)

There are a number of great bands I listen to (niche artists I admit, but very popular in their niches) that don't have pages, so I thought I'd put that right. I've created my first draft article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vega_Trails), but according to the reviewers I'm not meeting the "notability" bar.

Reading through the music notability guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) I feel it's meeting several of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" (definitely points 1 and 2, I'd also like to think 5 and 6 but those not into Jazz might not agree).

Could you help me understand what I could do to improve the article? --Pudding Racer (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response.

I took a look myself and from the current sourcing, I would agree that they do not meet the notability guidelines. Some of these sources seem to be standard press releases about the band as well as an interview with them. The issue is that most of these sources do not seem to be reliable or secondary. While a band having music reach the charts can often help with establishing notability, that on its own does not make them notable.

In terms of improving the article, I would seek out a variety of secondary, reliable sources that are independent from the subject and cover the subject in significant depth rather than press releases, as those do nothing to establish notability. If you cannot find such sources, the band may not qualify for an article. Hope this helps. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Ants from Up There is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Ants from Up There has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Ants from Up There has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Ants from Up There has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Andrew Ngige (10:48, 31 August 2025)

Hi, whats the one mistake to avoid for wikipedia editors --Andrew Ngige (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from ماءلعينين on Talk:Mattel (17:54, 2 September 2025)

عندي سؤال --ماءلعينين (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Djcoolshirt (17:22, 4 September 2025)

Hello! couple questions. So if edit something will it change after I edit it or not. Also if I edit something and its wrong is there like some sorta backup that changes it --Djcoolshirt (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you hit “publish edit” on a page after making an edit, it will be published immediately. You can press “undo” on your revision through the page history in order to remove it if you make a mistake. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from FashionTommy (08:36, 5 September 2025)

Hello, a couple of days ago I added a movie title and award to the Lisa Wilcox page. Can you please take a look and let me know if it's acceptable. If it's not, can you please explain why? Thank you. --FashionTommy (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The edit was undone by another editor as you cited IMDb as a source. IMDb is considered an unreliable source as it's made up of user-generated content and is thus not a reliable, secondary source. See WP:UGC for more. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from CosmicInterloper1977 (15:09, 5 September 2025)

How do I find credible citations and apply them onto a revision? --CosmicInterloper1977 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pjsunshine on Colin Andrews (19:14, 7 September 2025)

How do I add a picture? --Pjsunshine (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Uploading images Rambley 🦝 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mahmoud ahmedjjk (12:37, 8 September 2025)

Hello, I work for a company that wants to create a Wikipedia page. but not for promotional purposes. our company is a very notable company in the Digital Dental industry and we want to solidify this notability by having presences on Wikipedia. any suggestions? --Mahmoud ahmedjjk (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best course of action is to wait for another editor to write an article on your company. If you are truly notable, somebody will write the article on it. If you must, you can draft an article and submit it through the articles for creation process, where independent editors can review it for neutrality and notability. You should also declare your conflict of interest. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EuroDNS Draft question from @fgarcia12345

Hello Rambley! You recently declined my draft of the EuroDNS page.

I’d like to raise a concern regarding fair coverage of European domain registrars. At present, Gandi SAS has a Wikipedia page, while EuroDNS does not. However, we meet Wikipedia's rules for notoriety more thoroughly than Gandi does.

From my analysis, EuroDNS has been in business for over 20 years (founded in 2002) and has significant independent coverage in reliable sources (Forbes Luxembourg, Paperjam, ITnation, Silicon Luxembourg, Global Security Mag, etc.), as well as accreditation from ICANN and EURid.

Compared to Gandi’s article, EuroDNS has: - A similar or greater number of reliable third-party sources. - More recent coverage (2024–2025) in reputable media. - Institutional recognition (ICANN, EURid, Made in Luxembourg).

Based on Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines, this seems sufficient for inclusion. I’d like to understand whether the absence of an article is due to lack of awareness of these sources, or if additional steps are needed to demonstrate notability. Fgarcia12345 (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources used to do not help to establish notability of this business. Forbes is not a reliable source and many of the other sources here include other wikis and ICANN/EURID accreditation records which don't help towards notability. The draft is also written very promotionally. Taking a look at Gandi, I have doubts about its notability status too. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BBCNews2 on Help:Your first article (11:57, 9 September 2025)

Hello how do i write an article and publish it --BBCNews2 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BBCNews2, you could have a look at Help:Your first article. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you're allowed to have that username. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mags6767 (23:29, 9 September 2025)

Hello! Do you know if there's any way I can make my own Wikipedia "post"? Thank you! --Mags6767 (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social media platform and does not have "posts". If you'd like to write an article, see Help:Your first article. Rambley 🦝 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mags6767, you actually just made a post, and that's about as posty as we get here. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Hi Rambley,

I noticed on my Newcomer Homepage that you have been assigned as my Mentor. I just wanted to drop in and say Hi.

I am most interested in maintenance tasks and curbing vandalism on Wikipedia. I am especially seeing a lot of this on Hindi and Marathi Wikipedias but the admins there are pretty dormant so my flagged concerns don't get acted upon soon.

Anyways, I hope I can atleast contribute this way to English Wikipedia. I am looking to join some editing campaigns soon. But I'm pretty new so if you have any other suggestions for me, do let me know.

Anyways, I don't have a specific question. As I said, just dropped in to say Hi. Kingsacrificer (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Joe Calhoun "known for his accurate and insightful forecasts and Joe looked back on his extraordinary career and how his mentorship built a successful weather team of young weather broadcasters

I removed the sentence because it might be too wordy and you're right about that. R2025kt (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kingsacrificer (15:20, 13 September 2025)

I was looking at the Jawaharlal Nehru article. I felt it was so comprehensive and well-written that it should atleast be a WP:GA article. But I saw in its Talk page that it is merely rated as a B-class article.

There are no suggestions for improvements on the article page. How does one approach editing something like this? (I'm not trying to do it all myself, just asking for clarity)

Kingsacrificer (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Articles have their own process in order to get listed as such. Typically, you get an article up to scratch as much as you can until you feel it meets the GA criteria. Then, you nominate it. At some point an uninvolved editor will review the article for prose issues, content additions or removals, copyright, quality of sources, etc. You will have time to adjust the article based on your reviewer’s recommendations. Once the reviewer is happy with the article, it then gets passed and becomes a Good Article.

Depending on the topic, the GA process can take days, weeks or months. Selected Ambient Works Volume II took me around 3 months to get up to GA, while Untilted only took around a week. Before nominating for GA, you should get the article as up to scratch as you can. It should be comprehensive, leave out no important info and be written with good prose. Obviously this differs between reviewers, but once you feel happy with it is when I’d nominate it. It’s important not to jump into the GA process too fast, though; I only started nominating when I had around 1,000 edits. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 16:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting to receive an alert for this reply but somehow I didn't get subscribed to the topic. Strange.

I think you're right. I'm looking at too many GAs and FAs right now (even though I'm not planning to nominate as I'm not involved with the pages), even though I don't have strong experience in making an article comprehensive.

Every time I am go to a random page to edit it (through the Task Center or through Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives), I just feel very overwhelmed. I'm really struggling to Wikipedia:Be bold

Just to get my toes wet, I'm currently focusing on the Zerkaa article, aiming to increase its assessment ranking. It's proving tough to get a sources for a Youtuber's BLP that fit the guidelines standards, but I'm trying. If you ever have any specific suggestions for me in the futute, do share.

Thanks for the response! Kingsacrificer (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from A I R 339 on Anna Juliana Gonzaga (14:37, 14 September 2025)

hi there --A I R 339 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

So on the Zerkaa article that I'm editing, I don't understand why both sub-headings under the Other Ventures section appear different. Can you have a look, please? Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sidemen ventures" did not have bold markup in the header, "Solo ventures" did. I've removed the markup from the second. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I use Visual Editor and I didn't bold the text. Not sure how it got bolded, but anyways. Thanks for fixing it! Kingsacrificer (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Blissandpeace on Contact (15:51, 16 September 2025)

Note: Blissandpeace's mentor Sirdog is away.

How to upload content --Blissandpeace (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what you mean by content. Images, articles, sound files? Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Imam hasan parves on Google Answers (15:39, 17 September 2025)

Hi --Imam hasan parves (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SarahSmithLay (12:19, 18 September 2025)

Note: SarahSmithLay's mentor Sohom Datta is away.

Hi Sohom Datta and Rambley,

I just made my first significant edit to a Wiki page, expanding a stub of G-15 Eritrea into a more comprehensive page. I would be curious to hear if you might have any feedback on the page? I saw editors can request feedback via peer review, but I'm not sure that would be the right place to ask. Kind regards --SarahSmithLay (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! First of all, it's great to see expansion like this. I get a lot of people who immediately dive into article creation and it's nice to see someone getting into article expansion when they're starting out.

I took a look at the article in question and I think for the most part it's pretty good. The prose is clear and it's decently sourced; definitely not a stub anymore. I do have a few notes, though:

- It is better to write prose in your own words than it is to quote someone, although short quotes are acceptable. I noticed in the Legacy and Open Letter sections there's large paragraphs that are directly copied from the direct quotation. I feel it would be better to write it in your own words and quote short pieces from the source in question rather than just pasting the entire chunk in.

- More sources are always better. I noticed in a few parts some claims are missing direct sources. I always try to make sure there's at least one source per two sentences of text minimum. That means information can easily be researched and verified by the reader.

- I sense there's a little bit of original research; text like "In Eritrea, the G-15 have never been officially charged or brought before a court of law. Instead, several cases have been brought to courts outside of Eritrea" is technically true as the article goes on to talk about those cases, but really you should be writing about what reliable, secondary sources actually say. If it were me, I would write something like "The G-15 have been involved in courts of law outside of Eritrea, such as...". This is a little bit of a nitpick though. Just try to back up each claim you make with the appropriate source(s).

Overall, this is a great start. In short, if you just cut down on the amount you quote and add some more sources, it will make great article expansion even better.

Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 12:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Simon Le May Beckett (09:07, 21 September 2025)

I wish to create a page for "Ceres Rail Company" How do I disclose that I am a director of the company? --Simon Le May Beckett (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DISCLOSE. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ethancolee (08:41, 22 September 2025)

I created a page on Wikipedia, but I can’t see it as an ‘owner’ the way other platforms show you stats or mistakes when you publish content. Can you explain this a little? --Ethancolee (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "owners" of Wikipedia articles. I'm unsure what you mean by "stats or mistakes"; you need to review content yourself for mistakes or inaccuracies. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here

Please mentor can u help me edit my wikipidia page or better still tell me how its being worked Urgirljoyous (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what you mean by "my Wikipedia page". If an article exists about you and you want it changed, you should discuss it on the talk page of said article. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 15:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Saveunion (18:38, 23 September 2025)

why did you mention electronic music? --Saveunion (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of the articles I edit on here are related to electronic music. I also.. like electronic music. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Saveunion (06:29, 24 September 2025)

I have a task from close person (professor) to edit their page on Wikipedia, as long as open a new page for an existing dance collective. Can you help me to manage that part by part, and learn how to correctly edit wikipedia articels? --Saveunion (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've seemingly indicated you're a paid editor (or at the very least have a conflict of interest) and as such you need to declare it; see WP:PAID or WP:COI. You should also discuss edits you want to make on the talk page of the relevant article.

To create a new page, you'll need to review Help:Your first article. Help:Introduction also has information on starting out editing. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:45:18, 24 September 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Pgrondier

Pgrondier (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Accounting for sustainability: the C.A.R.E. project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your recent comments on my article submission - Help needed. Hello,

You have just reacted to my article submission. Thanks for your very quick reaction! You are indicating that "Many parts of the article are unsourced. The language used throughout still makes me think this is an advertisement. At the very least, this needs to be revised to be more neutral and use less jargon".

- I have collected and selected 20+ references, links and further readings around the context of C.A.R.E., the people who developed the project, its place within the multicapital & ecological accounting methods, etc. Could you point me at parts of the text where sources are missing?

- I have tried to be as neutral as possible (even using AI to check on the level of neutrality of the text!). Could you help me by pointing at specific examples where the text lacks neutrality?

- I would like to understand more about the jargon. I do realise that I have some expertise on the subject, and it might indeed come with a tendency to use some specialised wording. Here again, could you point me at wordings, expressions or formulations that need to be cleared?

Sincerely,

Philippe

Pgrondier (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not use AI when editing articles. It is frowned upon. Take a look at the "Levels of understanding", "Theory", "Incorporation of non-financial entities into traditional accounting" or "Connections with other accounting models and sustainability reporting frameworks" sections. All of these are either devoid of sources or only have a couple, leaving plenty of unsourced paragraphs.

In terms of jargon and promotional writing, I would point to examples such as "The linkage between this biophysical debt and traditional financial accounting can then be made by acknowledging that its reimbursement, being the activities to be conducted to bring the capital back to a good state, has a financial cost", "C.A.R.E. combines a classical approach to capital, understood as a liability to its investors, with a multicapital perspective, as a concept derived from ecological accounting" and "Between national and organisational levels, the chair also supports an ecosystem-centric management accounting model, meant to organise the strategic and collective management of shared ecosystems". A lot of the writing seems very essay-like rather than a neutral encyclopedia article and there's a lot of puffery. I would suggest reading through some other articles on the site to get an idea of how articles are typically written.

As another reviewer pointed out, you need to remove all external links from the article body. These should either be sources, wikilinks or external links if appropriate. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Once again, thanks for the quick reaction. I just want to make clear that I am not using AI for editing, but I did ask AI to check if the text was indeed written in a neutral tone.

I do not understand the comment on external links that should be suppressed "except when they're appropriate". In which cases are external links appropriate? Any official doc on t/pagee subject?

. Pgrondier (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO. Rambley ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your other comments and remarks. I'll go back to these in more details tomorrow Pgrondier (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with my First Draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Saraswati_Global_School&action=submit Anubhavma (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]