Thank you for volunteering your time and for doing an amazing job with dealing with that IP hoping user and for keeping the vandalism off of Charlotte Crosby and Hailee Steinfeld. I just want you to know that your effort, your time, and your diligence do not go unnoticed and we appreciate it very much. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Oshwah! I'd like to thank you as well for reverting many of the other edits and doing what I could not in blocking them (and all your efforts elsewhere in fighting vandalism). Do you know of any good tools for fighting vandalism that don't require rollback permissions (and preferably run in a browser)? AWB, Huggle, and STiki are standalone applications which require rollback rights, Igloo works in a browser but requires rollback rights, and many other tools are very outdated. I've found that RTRC doesn't really fit what I want (being designed for page patrollers), and Snuggle gives me errors (I don't know what permissions it requires), so I generally end up using the recent changes feed (usually edits with any of a large amount of tags, like this, or with some general bad faith or vandalism filters), in conjunction with Twinkle, but I feel that there must be a more efficient way to do this. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing great work here! I hope you know that. Well, I've been patrolling recent changes for about 10 years now - obviously a lot has changed since 2008 ;-). Do you have Twinkle enabled? If not, go to your preferences and flick the switch on - it's extremely helpful with making routine RCP tasks for you. Have you seen or gone through this list of RCP tools yet? There are a good number of different tools that will automate recent changes patrolling for you, and those do not require rollback. Give some of these a try, and let me know if you have any questions. The best advice I can give you is to find a tool that you personally like and are comfortable with using and without making mistakes. And remind yourself to leave a message on my talk page in about a month from now. If you're reverting vandalism and warning users appropriately, and filing good reports to AIV - I'll have no problem granting you some user rights. Keep up the good work, and please let me know if you have any questions or need help. I'll be happy to lend you a hand. Thanks again for doing what you're doing. Happy trails! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do have Twinkle enabled, and I've found it to be quite useful. Thanks for that link - I've seen many of those before, and haven't used them due to most of them either not being browser-based (which unfortunately is a major inconvenience for me) or a few of them requiring rollback, however I did find that Lupin's Anti-vandalism tools did everything I want, so I tried them out and have been using them for pretty much the last 2 hours, and they've been working out well, so I'll probably keep using them. Thanks again! LittlePuppers (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be so hasty in tagging when something is obviously just created, esp. by someone who has written an article or two. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I'm in no way meaning to imply that you don't know what you're doing (I think being an admin and having 4 FAs speaks for itself in that regard), I'm just suggesting that if you'd prefer not to find any secondary sources before publishing an article, maybe you should draft it first. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LittlePuppers, I should really be in bed, but one of my newly created articles got rapidly tagged a while back, so I wondered ... if you're using the new pages feed or Special:New pages, are new articles by those of us with the autopatrolled right still shown as already reviewed or without the yellow highlighting? The other editor was unaware that the absence of highlighting is supposed to be a message to new pages reviewers that the article has either already been checked or has been created by one of us warhorse article writers. This may all have changed now that new page reviewer is a special right and uses a special feed. Of course, you may have just seen it at Recent Changes. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to come back here, but here's the thing: old-time editors don't like being patronized by new-time editors. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: What exactly do you mean by "patronizing" (I'm assuming by "new" you mean anyone who's been here for a shorter period than yourself) in this regard? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Srsly? You're not just tagging too quickly, but you're also telling me what it is I should do when writing an article. I see you wrote an article, and not a bad one, and along the way you got a nice bit of assistance from other editors. Article writers need help: they need other editors who have different expertise and knowledge and who help improve articles. Experienced editors do not need to be told that they need references, nor do they need to be suggested that they draft it first. Sorry, but I am still struck by the arrogance and a-holishness of "I'm just suggesting that if you'd prefer not to find any secondary sources before publishing an article, maybe you should draft it first", which is condescending. You have not earned the right to make that kind of a remark, not to me and not to anyone else either. Don't ping me again; I got better things to do. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback granted
Hi LittlePuppers. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory(u • t • c)19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the IP we both had words with earlier, it's best to not play their game (and that's just what it is to them) by engaging in a back-and-forth discussion with them about their editing or their edits. I know I started it, but after it became clear they were just trolling, and after telling them not to waste our time, I intended to leave it there (especially since you had already requested they be blocked). See WP:DENY for a discussion of why it's generally better not to give them the satisfaction of an argument. General IzationTalk 00:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: Yes, that's very good advice (and it was largely why I did eventually stop). I don't think that's your fault whatsoever, it's definitely something I could have handled a lot better. Thanks again for the advice and all you do on Wikipedia. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: I didn't really look through it very thoroughly - that was largely based on the ratings for other wikiprojects. Looking at it further, I raised up to C-class - it's definitely at least worthy of that, and I'm a little hesitant to rate things above that (though it may well be worthy of it), because it's a bit outside of my area of expertise. I'll look at it further and give more advice soon - probably this afternoon or tonight. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: Again, apologies for taking so long - I should be back to a more normal schedule now. I've looked through it more thoroughly, and here's a list of various comments:
Is there any more recent news about him being de facto caretaker as of December 2016? Additionally, this could use some more explaining (why do they say that, etc. - not much more is said about that in the body).
Various places could use some rewording - I'll look into that, or perhaps request a copyedit.
You should probably mention him by name (as opposed to only using pronouns) in the first paragraph of the "early life" section (again, something I'll probably look at).
You refer to Khatha as "Thai black magic" - is that a common (and supported by references) name for it? It's not mentioned in the linked article, but that is definitely a stub.
In addition, I've made a few minor edits for grammar and the like, and I'll continue to do so over the coming days. Overall, it's a very nice article. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Farang Rak Tham, but I'm going to have to decline. I've considered it before, but if (or when) I do, I'd probably like to stick with topics I'm familiar with, especially initially - and as I've said before, I'm not especially familiar with Buddhism. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLittlePuppers! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and you consistently view and undo vandalism and disruption to articles. I believe that this user right would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the pending changes reviewer right at WP:PERM, I just went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and either accept them to be published and viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them so that the pending changes are not published.
Keep in mind these things regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you additional "status" on Wikipedia nor does it changes how you can edit articles (obviously).
You'll generally want to accept pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself - especially those that are vandalism or have neutral point of vieworBLP issues.
I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface you're used to, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into any troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the user rights and accepting or reverting pending changes. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, contact me and I'll remove it. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you acccept the pending change of Janet Jackson
The page was corrupted after Kimora's first edit about a complete navbox. May you please explain how did you accept that edit? It is lucky that the second problematic edit was dealt and I can revert both.--1233Talk03:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies 1233, I saw that |class=expanded was removed (which doesn't seem to change anything?) and upon first glance the navboxes appeared okay (why was that one at the end?) but I missed that }} was removed as well. Thank you for taking care of that, and I'll be more careful to make sure things like that don't happen again in the future. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please look carefully at what you are reverting. You should not have restored that edit without immediately fixing the referencing problem. A claim that someone was convicted and sent to prison sourced to a malformed (and thus unviewable) external link is not acceptable. The IP could probably have claimed that the removal of the material was justified on WP:BLP grounds. Meters (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: Ah, my apologies about that. I only looked at the diff, which seemed to be removing a referenced statement, and didn't notice the referencing problem. I'll watch more carefully in the future. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The next editor to revert it moved it to a reference while I was doing the same thing, so we had eyes on it. I'm just surprised this has been going on for so long. Meters (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Functional GI disorders
I am unclear as to why you deleted my addition of "also known as disorders of gut-brain interaction", as clinicians are now referring to FGIDs with this term since the latest clinical research shows that the brain is very much involved with disorders of the gut, so much so that neuromodulators (treatments that work in the brain) are now being used to treat FGIDs.
I am also unclear why you did not allow my deletion of the information on mast cells. The reference from 2015 needs to be deleted and the information linking mast cell involvement to the FGIDs is now known to be false. A reference from 2015 in the clinical world can definitely be considered obsolete.
Not sure what your clinical background is, but I assure you, my above reasons would be backed by the world's expert on FGIDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.26.111 (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, for any future contributions please provide reliable sources per our guidelines for medical articles. Additionally, please do not add links to external websites, such as yours to the Rome foundation, in the middle of the article. If they are relevant, they may be added in the external links section, or they can be added as a reference. Thank you. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I am new to Wikipedia in the editing function. I work for the Municipality of Greenstone and there is content on this page we are trying to update. Mainly, our motto is now "Nature's Home Town" and our municipal is no longer a "G" leaf, but now a compass. I have tried about 5 times, each without success to update these changes. I am confused on where to turn. Any ideas? "kristinamiousse"
My apologies. I noticed that you had accidentally removed the infobox; however, I reverted too far and undid all of your edits. They should now be restored. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Also note that as you work for the Municipality of Greenstone, then you have a conflict of interest and this is paid editing - this is not strictly forbidden; however, you are strongly encouraged to put further suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{edit request}} template in the future, instead of editing the article directly (this helps maintain neutrality in our articles). You are required to disclose that you have been paid to do this, but I've taken care of that for you. Happy editing! LittlePuppers (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
It's set for three months, after which you'll have to poke someone to review it. And it's a case of use it, don't abuse it, or lose it :) -- zzuuzz(talk)21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind reviewing this? While due to being fairly busy outside of Wikipedia I'm not as active as I used to be, I do still find this to be very useful sometimes. Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Message from Lisaromanopalacios
Sincerest thanks for taking me under your wing, showing me how to move articles, and going on to fix my mistakes. You rock!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaromanopalacios (talk • contribs)
No problem, Lisaromanopalacios! You're doing quite well, and I've had to do little more than give you some advice and do a bit of minor cleanup. I hope you enjoy it here and stay to improve many more articles - we're always in need of more good editors. Feel free to let me know if you ever have any more questions. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tone in chess articles
Thanks for trying to improve some overly vivid language in chess articles. The examples you corrected in Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation were particularly egregious, and your initiative was good since the feverish language had been in the article for some time and chess editors had not fixed it. I personally don't find "practically begging" in Trompowsky Attack to be a serious offense, but after reverting your edit I did intend to return to that page when I had the opportunity to come up with an alternative phrasing. The issue now is that "frequently leading to White inflicting doubled pawns" is also not an accurate paraphrase of "practically begging White to inflict the doubled pawns" as I think you will realize upon consideration. The original phrasing says nothing about whether it is likely that White will play Bxf6 or not, so unless you have a reliable source that indicates that this is the case it is unwise to make that edit. Of course there is no inline citation for the original statement either, which makes this murky anyway. The phrase "practically begging" was intended to indicate that 2...g6 is a provocative move that not only ignores White's positional threat but in fact dares him to execute it. I plan to return to Trompowsky Attack with some suitable language soon(ish). Quale (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for taking a look at that, Quale. I wasn't sure exactly how to word that, and in hindsight I probably should have put a lot more thought into that - making sure the information is accurate is more important than making it have proper tone (although ideally both should be good). LittlePuppers (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JC7V7DC5768, I'll keep an eye on that. It appears to be a table of contestants for some reality TV show (they've edited a few of those, but don't appear to have done anything major). I don't really know where they're going with that. For now I'm going to assume that it's some project they're working on and that no harm will come of it, but I may be wrong (I'm also a bit curious about their intricate knowledge of tables from the moment they joined). I'm also not sure how the edit I reverted fits in with all that. Anyway, I doubt there's much to worry about for now (remember, assume good faith, even when reverting unconstructive edits, unless it's obviously to the contrary - which this is not), but I'll keep an eye on it anyway. Thanks for letting me know. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I was saying is that maybe the edit that you reverted of GadgetGigi on Big Brother 20 was a test edit (which it appears to be) I based that purely on the user page edits by said user. But i did have concerns as to the purpose of the user having a reality show table in their userpage (and not in a sandbox or draft space as many users do). JC7V-constructive zone06:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JC7V7DC5768: It's called a userspace draft for a reason :). I've seen many newer users use their user page for drafts (many less innocent than this one), simply because they didn't know about sandboxes. There's nothing wrong with that (although a subpage or the draft namespace is preferred). I see you've left them a note, so that's probably fine. As to test edits: it's entirely likely, but I've found that {{uw-vandalism1}} is pretty broad (covering disruptive editing, vandalism, editing tests, where to get advice, etc.), is the default thing Twinkle opens to, and is usually what I use when I'm too rushed to figure out what the best response is and it's not too inaccurate. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys/girls, I’m pretty new to Wikipedia and the tables on my userpage are just my practice for working on reality show pages. I’m keeping them there to show what I have accomplished while editing on here. I also use them if I need to refresh my memory on how to do something. They are good practice while editing them. They are not going to be any harm to anything else on Wikipedia, I promise. I like to thank you for considering that. This is GadgetGigi by the way.
No problem Hmains, it was some formatting tag that wasn't closed correctly (<tt>text<tt> instead of <tt>text</tt>). It was annoying me when I left a message, so I thought I'd see if I could find where the problem was. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request for review of changes related to my attempts to bring my original company page back into Wikipedia
Hi LilPuppers,
Thanks for the information you have provided as I have been attempting to make my prior company page notable (once again?) after having it moved into a Draft area.
I have been scouring the net for any reviews/analysis/articles/etc. of my company and have posted around 25 so far.
Would you mind taking a look at the most recent changes on my Talk page, specifically reference links #17-19 (in the 'More new potential references' section), along with the paragraph following those additions?
I'm hopeful that the new additions of articles, dissertation reference, and analysis website information will help to make it clear my 14+ year company is valid/viable enough to justify a position within Wikipedia alongside my peers.
If all of the information provided can tip the scales to 51% notable, then hopefully (with some help on cleaning up whatever else is on the original page and still considered promotional/advertising), the original page can be moved from Draft back into Wikipedia as a live page.
I only want an informational page about my company in Wikipedia. I am not looking for an advertising or promotional page.
I own one of the very very few online dating sites/networks that has survived over 14 years in a very competitive market, and I really am just looking to have a place at the same table as the handful of other companies who have done the same.
Apologies for the late reply, I've been quite busy recently. I don't have much time to look thorough your exhaustive list of references at the moment, but I'll try to look through them relatively soon. A quick peek makes me think that they would generate similar comments to the others. Also, I found an archive of ref 5. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that most of the references I found have the same 'problem', but I'm hoping the last CNET one I added, that focuses exclusively on my company, and that odd site filled with a data analysis comparison of my company to other dating companies (in stats, income, ranking, etc) will be acceptable. I mentioned a few others in that last update, so when you do get a chance to look you may want to focus on those. While I'd love the sheer number and age of articles, book references, dissertation references and data analysis to work to show 'notability', I do understand that is not the way it works. I continue to hold out hope that there will be at least one acceptable nugget of gold in what I have found, to allow (after some clean up) my page to be viewed as legitimate and non-promotional. Thanks in advance for any additional help you can provide (and thanks for finding that archive of that article you added back into the original page). I don't know how you did that.Mic4444 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but I wonder how's this for a good user page
"LittlePuppers is a Wikipedia user that uses Wikipedia then he sometimes edits Wikipedia, but he never actually made a good user page."
@GDanthonyYT: That may or may not work, but I don't really feel like changing it right now. One thing I noticed is that it's in the third person. One thing I think you're missing is that your User: page is not an article. You seem to be using it to draft an autobiography (which is strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY), and you seem to be misunderstanding our guidelines about notability (in your draft and userpage) and neutrality (in your userpage). Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, and happy editing! LittlePuppers (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accentus Music
LittlePuppers,
I am wondering what is being looked for to justify 'Accentus Music' as a wikipedia article? There are many record and video labels/companies that have far less notoriety with articles on Wikipedia. The last edit supplied gave a whole list of solid citations that show Accentus Music as part of the classical, art music video market as a label/company (long list of awards, well established). Is it they have not been in the industry that long? Please clarify further/specifically why this page was declined.
What I'm looking for in regards to Draft:Accentus Music is citations focusing on the company - while citations focusing on things the company has published can be useful, notability is not inherited from those. Most of the citations you currently include in the article are focusing on music that is published by Accentus, but most of your secondary sources only have trivial mentions of the company itself, although your recent additions have helped with this somewhat. The article is getting close to establishing notability well and I think you can do so - I hope this helps you in finding citations, and let me know when you think it's ready for review again (or you could resubmit it to AfC... but that might take a while). LittlePuppers (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will acquire more citations and resubmit. Shelyric
No problem, I'm more than happy to help. Good luck - the article is otherwise very good, and I think it's getting close to having enough citations. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the discussion on the template is best done on the template talk page. The Spam page is rather prejudicial. I think that on the template talk page, there is plenty of room to un-collapse the discussion.--Sa57arc (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sa57arc: Sorry, I assumed that was a typo when you copied it, but I suppose there's no reason to leave it collapsed there. Can you please address the concerns that were raised previously about the links? LittlePuppers (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hello LittlePuppers I mentioned you because you before commented on my page regarding the case of user Arobleh who is a suspected sock puppeteer of middayexpress so I assumed you are ware of it. Check this [1], and you will understand why I mentioned you. Have a nice day and sorry for any inconvenience. Ryanoo (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see Ryanoo. Looking back, I'm not entirely sure why I was there, but I thought I'd mention that policy as I'd ran across it in the past and I thought you might find it helpful. I generally try to avoid sockpuppetry and stick with plain vandalism, but thank you for the thought. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, LittlePuppers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you very much for fixing my errors. I checked history to see what I did wrong. Little stuff. You have good eyes. I couldn't see it.Oldperson (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LittlePuppers, thank you for taking the time to review my submission, and your feedback on why the submission had to be rejected by you. As I understand it, the key point here is that it reads more like an advertisement by the author rather than a verifiable series of statements on the article subject. I will endeavour to improve the article to better reflect the required standards.. however, I'd like to dig in a little deeper. As I drafted this, I introduced two references/sources: one was the website of the subject of the article (which I can see could be considered an original text), however, I did cite the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs; this is an Indian government entity responsible for maintaining a registry of all incorporated companies in the country. Would this be considered a verifiable source? If not, could you give some common sources of verifiable information used by authors when creating Wikipedia articles about companies?
I'd be more than happy to help, Stps phonenix. There are a few things that I think will clear this up some and help you improve the article - and looking back, sourcing is as much of a problem as the tone.
First, sources. The general guideline is that an article should have significant coverage in at least three reliable secondary sources both to show that an article is notable and so that people can verify the information in the article. More specific guidelines for companies are found here. Significant coverage means that it must be a major focus of the source; being in something like "list of 10 software development tools" wouldn't work, and a passing mention as something such as a small tool in a study usually wouldn't count towards this, although (if needed) it could (in this hypothetical case) be used to source that it had been used in studies. This is somewhat relevant to your source from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs: it is reliable and secondary, and would be a great source for basic information about the company, but it has some information about every incorporated company in the country. Not every company is notable. While this is a good source, it is more of a directory (which Wikipedia isn't), and hence doesn't show the company to be notable.
Next, the sources should be reliable and secondary, for a few reasons. Reliability should be obvious: we don't want people making their own fake sources and using them in articles; usually reliable means that it has at least some editorial control. This includes things like blogs, as well as other untrustworthy and some heavily biased sources. (note that in some cases biased sources can be used, although usually not for opinions). flowharmonics.com obviously fails the secondary requirement. In this case, it can be used as a source, but again primary sources are often biased, and should mainly be used for non-contentious information and what the subject says about itself. Examples of reliable, secondary sources would be most books, scientific studies, and newspaper articles.
@Tyw7: Thanks for letting me know. I've been away from the wiki for the last month or so (I've been quite busy IRL), but hopefully I'll be back more soon. Getting off of that tangent, I've come back to see that it was closed exactly 10 minutes before I looked at it - but I'm fine with how it turned out, and AfDs have to get closed sometime :). LittlePuppers (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Box drawing
Thanks for replying on the help desk, sorry I only just got around to reading it now.
[[2]]
The problem is present with all those characters. I'm on Windows 10 now.
Hello! Your submission of Evangelical Heritage Version at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Lionel(talk) 04:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Answers in Genesis. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doing....--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
