Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Notification: Your Articles for Creation submission has been accepted (AFCH) |
||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 30:
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you purposefully and blatantly [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harass]] other editors. <!-- Template:uw-harass4 --> - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:::[[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|Drop the fucking stick]], or get blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether, your choice! - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 21:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't think I've harassed anyone, nor do I think I'm continuing a debate beyond its natural end. I certainly haven't harassed anyone "purposefully". For that matter, I don't know who specifically you're suggesting I've harassed (obviously either you, David, or both, but I don't know which) nor what specific debate you're referring to (though obviously it relates to either the fatal dog attacks page or the discussion on David's talk page).
::::If you want posting this here to be in any way productive, I suggest spelling out what specific actions of mine you find objectionable and why.
::::And, again, I suggest you look at your own behaviour. You have repeatedly treated me with rudeness and hostility and taken actions targeted at me that I find it difficult to see any justification for. At this point it is probably worth listing them. You:
Line 72:
{{u|ExplodingCabbage}}, I'd normally recommend discussion and limit the block in a way that allows you to still discuss the matter on talk pages, but I'm afraid that this would encourage [[sealioning]] and a [[WP:IDHT|failure or refusal to "get the point"]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 13:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:I understand that it will be another admin who reviews my appeal below, but I am really, really curious what you perceive to be going on in this "edit war" that warrants blocking me and not blocking @[[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]].
:I kind of suspect you have read the prior argument about the merits of keeping the Daily Mail citations (temporarily or otherwise) and made some wrong assumptions about the situation at the time that you blocked me. Did you understand that the previous argument about whether to cite the Daily Mail in the article had run its course on the Talk page, consensus had been reached to eliminate both the Mail citations and any information sourced from the Mail, and that then ''I'' went ahead and implemented that, both removing the citations and variously removing or re-sourcing the claims? And that the removal of information from the Mail is what @FlightTime then reverted?
:Did you understand that the "edit war" warning @[[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]] added to my Talk page was added (''after'' the end of the dispute about whether to keep the Daily Mail citations had already been resolved and there was no further prospect of the citations being re-added) was added pre-emptively by @[[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]] when he first reverted those changes and reintroduced content from the Daily Mail - accusing me of engaging in an edit war before I had yet made even a single revert as part of that alleged war?
:Were you aware that before doing my one and only revert of @FlightTime's revert, I spelt out in excruciating detail on his Talk page why his stated reason for reverting (that my changes were unsourced) was false - literally listing every claim I'd added and the citation in the article that corroborated it - and his response was to delete that from his Talk page, accuse me here of harassing him by making the post, and then re-revert my changes (and reintroduce the Daily Mail claims yet again) with an entirely new, equally inapplicable and unexplained edit summary?
:Blocking ''me'' in these circumstances - rather than blocking the editor cycling through blatantly false justifications for reverting changes agreed on in the Talk page and then deleting discussion about it - just seems nuts to me, and makes me think you are under some misapprehension about what was going on. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|reason=There was no justification for this block in the first place. The edits I was blocked for were clearly beneficial, implemented the consensus reached after discussion on the article's talk page, and were reverted on false, bad faith grounds by an editor who - despite my best efforts - refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion about them and who has over the past several days engaged in a pattern of abusive behaviour towards me. Furthermore, after initially making those edits, I only reintroduced them ''once'', and only after outlining clearly on the reverting user's Talk page that his asserted reason for reverting them (that they were unsourced) was false and inviting him to discuss any other objections. This was likely ''incorrectly'' perceived by the blocking admin as me continuing an "Edit war" because when the other editor ''first'' reverted my changes, after I first made them, he immediately and pre-emptively edited a warning onto my Talk page accusing me of engaging in an edit war; in reality I had just introduced the contested changes for the first time, and went on to revert their removal only once, only after attempting to start a discussion about them, and with even more sources added to attempt to address the complaint that they were unsourced. I do not see how reimplementing a set of reverted changes ''once'', with further improvements to address the ostensible concerns of the reverter, and only ''after'' posting at great length to explain why the reason given for reverting them in the first place was false, can possibly constitute "edit warring" or justify a block. I should be unblocked and either allowed to go ahead and reimplement those changes - which have the support of those who have discussed them on the article's Talk page and for which no good objection has so far been raised - or else at least allowed to take the matter to dispute resolution. (If directed by the unblocking admin to refrain from editing the article for now and post in dispute resolution, I will follow that direction. However, it is not clear to me that this would be wise direction to give since the other party refuses to engage in discussion about the edits and has made clear that they view continuing to discuss them as harassment; certainly going to dispute resolution will be seen as further "harassment". Another approach may be preferable.)
:More detail:
:The changes that triggered @[[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]] to warn me for "edit warring" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1230418265&oldid=1230300962) and the reimplementation of those changes after they were reverted that finally triggered this block (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230549661) both implemented consensus, reached unopposed on the article's Talk page, to:
Line 79 ⟶ 85:
:To date, @[[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]] - the editor who has repeatedly reverted these changes - has not articulated any coherent, truthful objection to these changes, despite my multiple attempts to engage. Instead he has sworn at and threatened me here on my Talk page and accused me of a slew of offences including harassment. Multiple users have agreed that these changes should happen; the only opposition is his, and he is unwilling to engage in any sensible discussion about it.
:His reverts of my changes, and his untruthful justifications for them in edit summaries, occurred in the context of a pattern of abusive actions towards me and false statements - CTRL-F on my Talk page for "You have repeatedly treated me with rudeness and hostility" to see a list - and he gave entirely false reasons for them in his edit summaries on both occasions, first claiming (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230463057) that my edits were unsourced OR and next (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230566485) that they are "POV trolling". Prior to reverting the edit claiming my changes were unsourced OR, I posted on his Talk page listing every change of mine that he had reverted and the cited sources that corroborated it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlightTime&oldid=1230549833#Reverted_edits_to_List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom); his response to this was simply to delete my post and adding an "only warning" here characterising that post as purposeful and blatant harassment. As for the claim that my edits are "POV trolling", I think that simply glancing at them will show that this is not the case; there is no contentious political or ideological content to them at all.
:For ''me'' to be the one being blocked in these circumstances, when I have spent many hours and great amounts of effort trying to engage in any meaningful discussion of the article with @[[User:FlightTime|FlightTime]], strikes me as an obvious injustice that in no way benefits the article in question. This block should never have been issued. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 15:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)|decline=This is one of the longest unblock requests for a two week block I have ever seen in my 6 years as an admin. No, I [[WP:TLDR|didn't read it all]]. This request justifies the block, instead of showing why it should be removed. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)}}
:I feel confirmed in not making it a partial block. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::Well, that's depressing. I guess what I'm hearing here is: keep talk page stuff ''short'' and focused only on the most important points, or risk being written off as a loon by everyone who reads it. Well, noted for 2 weeks' time. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 19:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::FYI, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=1230566397 these two diffs] seem to show that the complaint was for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism vandalism]. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 22:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Interesting; I never got a notification about being mentioned there. I guess there's something special about that page that makes user mentions there not create notifications? Thanks for pointing it out.
::::(Obviously, I object to all the accusations made against me in that diff, for reasons already outlined above and not worth recapitulating.) [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 16:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
==Authority control==
The page you mention says:
=== Position ===
{{See also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers{{!}}Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout}}
As a metadata template, the Authority control template should be placed after the [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]] section and [[Wikipedia:Navigation templates|navigation templates]].
-- ends --
The standard layout is See also, References, External links. These are all optional and can sometimes have different names, moreover there are alternatives particularly in the references/footnotes/sources arena. After that end matter which completes the article proper you get sometimes succession boxes, navboxes and authority control. After that there are a few invisible bits and pieces, like coordinates (which is visible, strictly speaking, but generally the ___location of display depends on the setup of the template), then DEFAULTSORT then categories then stub templates then any interwikis (of which there are only a very few remaining, mostly links to sections I think).
Hope that helps.
All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 22:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
:Yeah, got that - but for some reason I thought you'd put the template above the references list and that I was moving it below the references list where it belongs. When I take another look at my edit, though, I see that that's nonsense and that actually you'd put it in the right place and I moved it below the categories, which is wrong. Not sure how I got that wrong. (I think I must have assumed without properly reading that the existing wikitext below the ==References== heading was all references.)
:Sorry for my incompetence - will revert now. :)
:(I'm still not really clear on what the point of having the Authority control template in the article at all is, given that it doesn't seem to render anything currently.) [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 09:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
== Rugby team ==
Three speedy deletion nominations, multiple (not only me) ignored advices to bring it to AfD and still you see no pointy actions? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 01:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:What ''point'' do you claim he was trying to make? What policy was he trying to discredit? How are ''any'' of the actions you list even relevant to [[WP:POINTY]]? [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 07:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]] <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 11:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Whether or not he was applying the speedy deletion rules correctly (not sure, would have to scrutinize the rules carefully to form an opinion), it seems very obvious to me that @[[User:PeeJay|PeeJay]] wanted the disambiguation page deleted in order to allow the rename to be undone, which he was advocating for because he sincerely believed undoing the rename was the right thing to do. I do not see any plausible interpretation of his actions where they were all a scheme to discredit the speedy deletion criteria, and I don't really see how you can believe that they were.
:::(In particular, I ''really'' don't see how you can view the act of giving up on the speedy deletion once it was challenged and making a move request instead as being meant to discredit the speedy deletion criteria. How could that ''possibly'' work?) [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 12:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Abdul Hai (politician)]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]
The article [[:Abdul Hai (politician)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]] because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Title is ambiguous - both [[Abdul Hai (UK politician)]] and [[Abdul Hai (Bangladeshi politician)]] are politicians. Furthermore there is already a disambig page at [[Abdul Hai]], so I see no reason to create a second one. Suggest we simply delete this page.'''</blockquote>
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Abdul Hai (politician)|the article's talk page]].
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
'''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the [[Help:Introduction to navigating Wikipedia/4|history]] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, [[User:FastilyBot|FastilyBot]] ([[User talk:FastilyBot|talk]]) 10:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Fastily|Fastily]] this is an amusing failure mode of your bot - it's notifying me of a deletion proposal ''that I proposed'', on the automatically-created redirect page left behind when I renamed a page.
:It's no big deal (and I don't know if it's technically difficult), but it'd be neat if your bot could check who proposed a page's deletion and avoided notifying authors of deletions they proposed themselves. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's not how this works. There is no prod for redirects created as a result of a move. Barring extenuating circumstances, there is generally no good reason to delete these. If you think the redirect should be deleted, then please use [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|RfD]]. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-size:120%;">Fastily</span>]] 00:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::That may be (and the admin who removed the proposal template would seem to agree with you), but it's orthogonal to the point I was making to you here, which is that there's no point in the bot notifying me about my own proposals. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 07:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::::You made a mistake because you failed to read/follow instructions. I'm not going to change the bot to account for errors like this. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-size:120%;">Fastily</span>]] 09:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, this proposal was a mistake. But there is no reason that a valid, non-mistaken PROD couldn't be made on one's own article; the suggestion here doesn't in any way hinge on the particular merits on my PROD. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 11:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
== Abdul Hai ==
I like the article, though you belabour his non-conviction. He is, by the way, a close friend of [[Keir Starmer]], and helped him get selected for the 2015 GE (Starmer attempted to repay the favour this year, unsuccessfully). [[Special:Contributions/2.101.99.164|2.101.99.164]] ([[User talk:2.101.99.164|talk]]) 20:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks!
:I personally felt like everything in the non-conviction section was relevant and necessary to portray the whole picture - that he was acquitted, that this (if we suppose the note given to Miah's lawyers was genuine) perversely happened despite the jury actually being convinced he was guilty of murder and ready to convict (... but perhaps only because it was a racist jury), that he denies having even been present, that he's taken legal action to suppress accusations against him, and that at least some such accusations that we're able to see (like Tommy Robinson's) are undeniably false and that he's suffered personally due to the aura of suspicion around him. I think eliminating any element of that leaves the reader with a meaningfully incomplete picture. That said, you are certainly welcome to edit or to argue for changes on the Talk page, and having written the entire first version of the article I'll try to step back and let others reshape it in any reasonable way they see fit.
:The closeness to Starmer was mentioned in the OPEN Newham article I cited and I think I saw people say the same thing on Twitter, and of course Hai notes having worked with Starmer on his personal website, but I didn't really find any ''mainstream'' sources acknowledging their friendship. (OPEN Newham seems to be a fairly nasty political gossip rag and some of their content is satire; I didn't want to rely on them as a source for hard facts, only for opinionated commentary.) Do you have a solid source noting the friendship between the two of them that we could cite or do you know this stuff from unciteable insider knowledge? It would be good to include, but only if we can do so in a policy-compliant way. [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 13:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::There's very little written down, let alone citeable. But I can tell you along similar lines (even if it can't be included in articles) that it will have been Mishcon de Reya who reported the tweet. And that his claims of having 'suffered' are absolute junk. Forget Morgan McSweeney personally intervening to stop him from becoming an MP; Abdul Hai would never have even been a councillor if Richard Everitt hadn't been murdered. You are, of course, absolutely correct that Tommy Robinson's tweet that he was convicted is completely false. [[Special:Contributions/2.101.99.164|2.101.99.164]] ([[User talk:2.101.99.164|talk]]) 19:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2024|2024 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 -->
== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Failure demand|Failure demand]] (March 17) ==
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by SafariScribe was:
{{divbox|gray|3=This draft's references do not show that the subject [[Wikipedia:Notability|qualifies for a Wikipedia article]]. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: <br />
* ''[[WP:Notability#General notability guideline|in-depth]]'' (not just passing mentions about the subject)
* [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|''reliable'']]
* [[Wikipedia:No original research#Secondary|''secondary'']]
* [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|''independent'']] of the subject <br />
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about [[Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)|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 ''after they have been resolved''.
{{clear}}
* If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to [[Draft:Failure demand]] and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
* If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions|may be deleted]].
* If you need any assistance, or have experienced any [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|untoward behavior]] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the <span class="plainlinks" >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Failure_demand '''Articles for creation help desk''']</span>, on the <span class="plainlinks" >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SafariScribe&action=edit§ion=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Failure_demand '''reviewer's talk page''']</span> or use [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors]].
<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 11:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC decline-->
:What do you think is wrong with the existing non-Vanguard sources? Of course there are two non-independent sources too (the ones by Vanguard, owned by Seddon, who coined the concept), but there are three academic sources and one UK government one cited that are all specifically about failure demand and (so far as I can see) independent of Seddon. Is your concern that these four sources are in some sense not "secondary"? (I'm not really sure how to apply the concept of primary vs secondary here; I'm not sure if the distinction even makes sense in this context.) What sort of alternative sources would you like to see? [[User:ExplodingCabbage|ExplodingCabbage]] ([[User talk:ExplodingCabbage#top|talk]]) 13:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
{| style="margin: 0.4em 2em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| [[File:WP teahouse logo 2.png|alt=Teahouse logo]]
| <div style="background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;">Hello, '''ExplodingCabbage'''!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk|Articles for creation help desk]]'''. If you have any ''other'' questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the '''[[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]]''', a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 11:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)</div>
|}<!-- Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation -->
[[Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC]]
== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Failure demand]] has been accepted ==
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">[[File:AFC-Logo.svg|50px|left]] '''[[Failure demand]], which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.'''<br />
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />
The article has been assessed as '''Start-Class''', which is recorded on its [[Talk:Failure demand|talk page]]. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they [[Wikipedia:Article development|develop]] over time. You may like to take a look at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme|grading scheme]] to see how you can improve the article.
<div class="autoconfirmed-show">Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now [[Wikipedia:Your first article|create articles yourself]] without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] if you prefer.</div>
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''<span class="plainlinks" >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Failure_demand help desk]</span>'''.<span class="unconfirmed-show"> Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to [[Wikipedia:Your first article|create articles yourself]] without posting a request to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]].</span>
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
[[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 15:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC accept-->
| |||