User talk:Iseult

This user is busy in real life due to work and graduate school, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #283

Gramix13 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

I have done my best can you review my draft ...I have written draft on Ganga Datta joshi ...he was leader in farwest region ...so as a citizen of farwest we want to recognize our regional leader.. I have assignment on these works ..please accept --Justprashant12 (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12, can you clarify the nature of your assignment? Is it for work? School? In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

no, I am studying bachelors in Mahendranagar...I want some experience in writing in Wikipedia...so I have written this draft ..can you talk about my draft...I have done my best Justprashant12 (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12, I’d recommend tightening up the article, particularly the Legacy section; great parts of it can be cut. Also, the date is unclear—it’s not year 2077, certainly not on this Wikipedia. The rest can be edited line by line.

But what is the assignment you mentioned earlier? In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Iseult,

Thank you very much for your feedback. I have made the changes you suggested. I tightened the Legacy section, removed unnecessary details, corrected the date issue, and revised the article line by line to the best of my ability.

I would really appreciate it if you could take one more look at the draft and let me know if there is anything else that should be improved. I have done my best and would be grateful for any further suggestions before the article is accepted.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Justprashant12 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12, I'll leave it to the good reviewers of AfC to determine what to do with the draft. But your draft is currently overcited, is unspecific about his influence (if vague, I'd prefer to omit it), and could use details about his service in the National Assembly. That's where his accomplishments are. Being someone's friend is not an accomplishment. Other than that, grammar. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've made the changes you suggested and improved the draft a lot. I've also added his accomplishments. Could you please give it a quick review? Justprashant12 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've made the changes you suggested and improved the draft a lot. I've also added his accomplishments. Could you please give it a quick review? Justprashant12 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12, cut the WP:PEACOCK words, be specific in the legacy section (you’ve rephrased, not specified), and drill down on accomplishments—preferably successful—not associations with other people. Being someone’s friend or colleague doesn’t confer notability. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have already made many improvements to the article. Could you please review it once more and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be improved? Justprashant12 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12, it looks a lot better than it did originally. There is of course plenty more to be improved, but if the sources are good and assertions borne out by said sources, I’d give this draft a rest for now. Improvement never ends on this project.

Please don’t take this as an endorsement of your draft in the Articles for Creation process. I don’t review articles there, and if a fellow volunteer declines your draft, I’d encourage you to heed their advice then. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

how many days I have to wait for? That Justprashant12 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12, I couldn’t possibly say. The estimate of a few months on your draft might be accurate. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

can you recommend this article to them ?? Before that time .. Justprashant12 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 15:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Justprashant12, I’ve consulted with a few others; we agree that the subject of your article is notable enough for inclusion. The quality of the article, though, will have to be worked on.

Please note that we can’t cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, as you have done with source 8. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 23:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

My article hasn't been accepted yet. Do you have any information about how long it might take? I really hope it gets accepted soon. It's been pending for a long time now. Justprashant12 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justprashant12, unfortunately not. I've asked around on the WP Discord, and no one who reviews has turned up. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Amended: the conclusion is that yes, the topic is notable, but that the draft needs plenty of improvement. Furthermore, I'm clear to review your draft at AfC, but bear in mind that 1) I'm not inclined to accept it at this moment, 2) I haven't reviewed AfC drafts in ten years, and 3) we ought to communicate about your draft over there now. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 03:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Iseult. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard. I get the impression sometimes that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to share and learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. Looking forward to hearing your feedback. Please take the § Survey when you get there! Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

اريد منصه للاطفال --Samo.200 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Iseult! Does every single edit need some sort of source to back it up? --JoyfulJamm (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

JoyfulJamm, well, if the edit makes some sort of claim, yes. Ideally, every sentence that isn't in the lede of an article is cited or is clear as to the source material. But, technically speaking, this comment is an edit. Fixing grammar and spelling is an edit. Those obviously can be source-free. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 04:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

אני הבת של otto emperror נמצאת בירושלים וחייבת בנק של אבי the great emperror ott ki 8 lot

,מדינת נשראל על דומיין שולחן הפוך ai אינטלנציות של צואת חמור היפוך לממשפחת האצולה הולי אוטו דומיין בינה מלכותית k8 סוסים

Otto bank zodiac --Otto general cloud (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Iseult. Thank you for your work on Egg Clearinghouse. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	for your work processing WP:Closure requests, the content work most sorely in need of hands. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for Egg Clearinghouse! I am excited to see it featured on Did You Know. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

yooo hey hows it going! --TryFast (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

TryFast, life's good but am sleep-deprived. How're you? I see that you're contributing well to Minecraft so far; keep it up! In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! TryFast (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Iseult:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on the US and Australian militaries Review essay: Nick-D on South African military museums Timeline: This month in military history

Really bad page move, well done. GiantSnowman 20:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

GiantSnowman, I’m sorry to hear that you’re unhappy with it. Could you describe what processes I might have misapplied? I’m happy to discuss this here (briefly) and at WP:MRV should you choose to do so.

In fact, I’m willing to open an MRV against myself as a gesture of good faith. I’m a little busy this week, though, what with family coming to visit, so please let me know as soon as you’re able. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You dismissed years of consensus from various discussions as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. GiantSnowman 17:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

GiantSnowman, I did, with reasoning given in my close. I will also, when I get home from work in a few hours, open an MRV on my own close unless you object to that. Otherwise, as stated in my close, you’re free to (and please do—I don’t like sponsored names any more than you do) open an RfC codifying those years of consensus as amendments to COMMONNAME. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have neither the time or inclination for a MRC or RFC. This was never needed previously because the consensus was clear and established. You have simply ignored that, for a decision you seemingly don't like. Bizarre! GiantSnowman 18:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

GiantSnowman, in that case, I think it would be best to proceed to an MRV regardless to determine whether I have evaluated that consensus mentioned in the discussion correctly. I will of course ping everyone involved in the discussion, and no doubt your opinion is shared and so your objections on my talk will be raised in the review. But given that you’ve said that you have no inclination or time for an MRV, maybe you’d prefer to forgo a ping?

As far as closes go, I think that this was relatively WP:BOLD for me, and so a review won’t hurt. Unless you think that no MRV should take place, which I’d be really relieved to hear. I’ve enough on my plate as it is. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, leave it in that case. GiantSnowman 20:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can I also urge you to undo this close and let it be closed by an admin instead. You have ignored 15+ years of precedents in such discussions. Number 57 00:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Number 57, given that your objection to this stems from my evaluation of precedent, I am, again, more than happy to go to move review. I ask only that you wait a few days; I have family in town. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

After some thought, I’d be willing to append “for the purposes of this RM” to the local consensus clause in my closing statement. I believe strongly in editorial discretion, and it is not my intention to throw out FOOTY’s guidance wholesale, especially where it does not contravene COMMONAME. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't address the issue that you have ignored 15+ years of consensus on the matter, which is de facto a naming guideline for English football stadiums in the absence of a formal one. We can't have naming conventions for everything, so in cases like this, repeated outcomes are the next best thing. Number 57 22:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Number 57, when though common practice comes into conflict with policy, policy prevails, right? Did the opposition in the RM at any point rebut the evidence that the supporters offered to support the argument of COMMONNAME?

If the fifteen years of consensus is strong, I don’t see why an RfC codifying said consensus can’t be held, whereupon this discussion will be moot. I said as much in my close. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

An RfC has never been needed because up until now move closers respected the longstanding consensus. If common practice is established in the absence of a specific guideline, then it should be taken into consideration. And as you keep mentioning COMMONNAME, closers of RMs should be aware that does not trump other considerations (unfortunately this point seems to be lost in far too many RM discussion) – the WP:CRITERIA are the most important things, and one of the five key elements is consistency. Taking another example, there is no naming guideline for English football clubs. The common name of Manchester City F.C. is 'Man City'. However, all English football club article title use clubs' full names with F.C./A.F.C. etc. I would hope no RM closer would ever be foolish enough to ignore that if someone did suggest moving the Manchester City article. We have a consistent approach that stadiums with commonly known non-sponsored names are titled using those names, in part to stop repeated moves every time the stadium changes sponsor. Precision and concision are also part of the criteria, and Etihad Stadium meets neither because there is more than one Etihad Stadium. Number 57 22:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Number 57, had the additional arguments been brought up in that discussion, I would have taken that into account. That is a policy-based argument. But they weren’t, and so this feels like an ex post facto attempt to relitigate the discussion. I have to assume good faith of participants and interpret the absence of those arguments as acknowledgments that the other criteria were felt to be unimportant, especially as COMMONNAME was mentioned and linked many, many times; the section mentions the five criteria and is immediately downwind of said criteria.

(The common name of the stadium, if we’re going by nicknames now, would be “the Etihad”, no? And “Etihad stadium” is more concise than “City of Manchester stadium”, and the primary topic would be the this stadium, so there’s no need to disambiguate. But I digress. These are arguments for RMs, not for post-close reviews.)

Anyways, per WP:CONLEVEL, Impermissible: A group of editors (whether or not a WikiProject) decides that relevant sitewide policies and guidelines should not apply to particular articles. I see here a claimed consensus, across fifteen years and limited to articles about soccer (sorry; American here) stadia, that a straight-up interpretation of COMMONNAME doesn’t apply. This wasn’t contested in the RM. Instead, opposition was limited, essentially, to references to this local consensus and desires not to commercialize the article.

I think that the commercialization argument, as WP isn’t a platform for advertising, would be a good starting point for an RfC. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 23:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

People didn't bother making such arguments in the RM because we've never had a move closer ignore the longstanding consensus, and so no-one would have felt the need to make such arguments.

As for quoting CONLEVEL, unfortunately I think this shows you just don't get the arguments GS and I are making. This is not a consensus a group of editors came up with at a WikiProject talk page. This is the repeated result of many RMs over the years – the Wikipedia equivalent of case law. Number 57 23:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Number 57, that would be correct. I do not understand how this isn’t a local consensus. Editors (whether or not a WikiProject) have, across many RMs, decided that COMMONNAME does not apply to soccer stadia, at least not completely. If we are to use legal metaphors, extant case law has been found unconstitutional. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 23:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

In the absence of a dedicated naming guideline, the repeat outcomes from previous discussions are the closest thing there is to a subject-specific guideline.

Abibtrary decisions like this are what drives good editors away from topics. I urge you again to reconsider and vacate the close. Number 57 00:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Number 57, I would have liked to consider my closing statement, the fundamental logic of which asides from the result has not been challenged, not arbitrary. I continue to fail to understand why an MRV or RfC has not been filed in order for the community writ large (albeit a lot less large at the former) to evaluate and/or change policies.

Should you not object, as I have offered GS above, I will file one of the former against myself. My initial offer to amend my statement also stands. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Or that might be an unproductive use of community time. Let me know what you think. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello - Where can I draft a new article for creation? --CitationLedger (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@CitationLedger, I recommend that you use the Article Wizard. For that, go to instructions on how to create your first article and look for the big blue button around halfway down the page. I’d also recommend reading the rest of the page. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello --Mbulelo sixaxa junior (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello can l send you my photos to make a poster --Mbulelo sixaxa junior (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mbulelo sixaxa junior, I’m afraid that you can’t. This is an encyclopedia, not a poster service. Also, I’m bad with pictures. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

N --Moirzi (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

માનસીમાનસી --માનસી (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, good afternoon my mentor, how can I use these things to improve myself. --Emeka sincerity (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Emeka sincerity, good morning! As much as I’d like to see you improve yourself, I’m not sure what you mean by “these things.” Do you mean HKScan’s meat products? In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 15:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red | August 2026, Vol 12, Issue 8, Nos 358, 359, 378, 379, 380 Events: New: Alphabet run: Countries starting with N and O | Indigenous women | Women born before 1900 Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Announcements: On 25 July, at Wikimania Paris, Women in Red was named the Coolest Project! Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for a woman's status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk 21:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

hello im a child and i dont know how to make a own article pls help --User of aura 1267500 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User of aura 1267500! I think that this page on making your first article is more helpful and comprehensive than I can be. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Iseult. I am a new editor and the subject of a possible biographical article. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on User:JEHContributor and do not intend to publish an article directly. Before beginning an Articles for Creation draft, could you advise whether the following sources appear sufficient to establish notability? Community Catalyst profile Talk Business & Politics article Arkansas State University article My understanding is that organizational profiles can verify basic facts but may not be sufficiently independent, while the newspaper article provides only limited coverage. If the available coverage is insufficient, I will wait rather than create or submit a draft. Thank you. JEHContributor (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

JEHContributor, thanks for disclosing your COI! And your understanding of coverage in independent secondary sources is correct; I don't think that these sources alone would help you pass WP:GNG. Granted, I'm on the stricter side when it comes to notability, so, for transparency, let me walk you through my reasoning:

The Community Catalyst piece is brief and has the aim of spotlighting the effect of tax credits; the source is an advocacy group. I'd question the independence of this source; also, I don't think that being affected by policy confers notability. This might help you squeeze over the line, but it would require many editors use their editorial discretion in the interpretation of policy to your benefit.

TalkBusiness: two paragraphs, one of which is a quote; limited coverage.

ASU: while more in-depth, affiliated with the subject (alumnus).

This doesn't mean that you aren't notable; it just means that, given the policies we have in place on Wikipedia, it's hard to make a case for your article. I recently wrote about Eric Kim (food writer); while a lot of people have heard of him and his work (mainly bringing the gochujang trend into everything/mainstream), I struggled greatly to make a case, given sourcing, for his article. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

On 2 August 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Egg Clearinghouse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that three companies settled U.S. government claims that they manipulated the Wall Street of Eggs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Egg Clearinghouse. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Egg Clearinghouse), 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 nominate it.

Sennecaster (Chat) 00:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply