Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pythoncoder below:

User talk:Pythoncoder - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Pythoncoder}}), so that I will be notified.
• If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.

Hi @Pythoncoder , thank you for reviewing my draft on Ant International. I noticed that the submission was declined with the reason that it contains promotional or advertising content.

Could you kindly help me understand specifically which parts of the article or which sources were considered promotional? I’d like to revise it to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing standards, but I want to make sure I correct the appropriate sections.

Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Apriliantosetyadi (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChatGPT, beep boop to you too. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pythoncoder,

Thanks for your time reviewing the intiial entry for Coleman Douglas Pearls - much appreciated! I've removed any unreferenced content and made the article objective and non-promotional based on your guidance. Please take a look and let me know if there are any other issues whenever you get a chance.

For context, I write blog posts and web content for the company and have been asked to write a Wikipedia entry as a one-off project. I will update the conflict of interest in my account now.

I was wondering if you could help with another issue regarding referencing. A lot of the sources we do have are physical copies of things like magazines and newspapers. Is there any way we can use these as references for additional information, such as scanning them or uploading pictures? It would be a shame not to include many of the company's historical successes.

Thanks

WikiMnemosyne (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiMnemosyne: You are welcome to use print sources (such as books, newspapers, and magazines) as references in your draft. See WP:OFFLINE for more guidance on this. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PythonCoder!👋 I've made several updates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eclipse0 based on your previous feedback regarding in-universe tone and style!

Let me know if the current version addresses your concerns, or if there are any remaining areas you'd recommend polishing before it's ready for approval.

Thanks again for your time and guidance :)! WilliamManchuria (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What can I improve for the Sharky Wikipedia Page to get it accepted?

thanks for your help! Monazarm (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing that's needed is that some more references should be added, using inline citations, to show that the subject is notable. You can read the page WP:42 for a quick introduction to the key points of Wikipedia's notability rules. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for the work you do.

I've worked on the article and would like you to take a look before I resubmit it for review. I'd appreciate to hear what you think of it.

Thanks for help. Iamwizzy (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder,

I left a message earlier, you may have missed it. I worked on the draft.

Not only that, but I have resubmitted and hope I fixed it this time.

Regards, ⁣@Iamwizzy Iamwizzy (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamwizzy: While your topic seems notable, I'm going to let someone else review it this time around so the draft can be reviewed by a fresh set of eyes. Unfortunately, I can’t provide a timetable for how long this will take. Good luck, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Iamwizzy (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Pythoncoder. I may have used AI in modifying wordings and citing references,but that doesn't change the fact that my work is provable, fact-checkable, and linguistically and authoritatively backed by early documentaries.

I will work on a refined version; one that has no traces of AI or any of its influences. 

I will be patiently waiting for your reply. Thanks in anticipation 🙏 Gemini22jnr (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word “Oga” Gemini22jnr (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pythoncoder,

Thanks for your feedback. I’d like to take a moment to clarify that my edits are not Original Research WP:OR. Each claim I added is supported by a single, reliable source WP:RS — specifically, authoritative and published dictionaries that include: Samuel Àjàyí Crowther’s Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language (1852)

Thomas Jefferson Bowen’s Grammar and Dictionary of the Yoruba Language (1858)

The Church Missionary Society’s Yoruba Dictionary (1913)

Kay Williamson’s Dictionary of Onicha Igbo (1972)

The Oxford English Dictionary

Each of these references explicitly records the word “Oga” or its relevant cognates, especially in the context of the Yoruba language. I made sure not to interpret or combine information from multiple sources; every statement is directly cited from a single, verifiable source.

I also want to respectfully note that sister projects like Wikipedia and Wiktionary really should not present conflicting etymological claims on the same word — not unless both are backed by solid, published linguistic evidence. Presenting contradictory information without reliable support can hurt the credibility of Wikimedia projects, particularly when it concerns culturally and linguistically significant terms like "Oga."

At present, the article seems to favor an Igbo derivation, but this position appears to lack strong linguistic or historical support. In contrast, multiple authoritative sources — including Crowther (1852), Bowen (1858), the CMS Dictionary (1913), and even the Oxford English Dictionary — directly trace the term “Oga” to the Yoruba language. Even Kay Williamson’s Dictionary of Ọ̀nìchà Igbo specifically and explicitly annotated that the word is of Yorùbá Origin not Igbo .

The encyclopedia should remain anchored in verifiability — not interpretation or editorial speculation. Claims, especially those concerning word origins or derivations, need to be backed by reliable, published linguistic sources. This isn’t about dismissing any language or cultural contribution; it’s about protecting the integrity and reliability of the resource.

If there's a particular sentence in my contribution that seems unclear or that might resemble synthesis, I’d be more than happy to revisit it constructively. As it stands, however, everything I've included adheres to Wikipedia’s core policies on verifiability, reliable sourcing, and original research.

Thanks again for engaging, and I look forward to resolving this collaboratively.

Best regards, Gemini22jnr Gemini22jnr (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t write this either, did you? I’m getting strong ChatGPT vibes from this. Please note that repeatedly using LLMs to write talk page comments and passing them off as your own writing is a great way to get blocked —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello，Pythoncoder.

Thanks for your feedback. Really? I'm greatly mortified that you really do think every constructive writeup very much passes as ChatGpt's handiwork.

Firstly, despite the fact that I wasn't too happy with your last comment, I refuse to allow such determine how I'm going to react at this present moment. Nine years as an editor on Wikipedia is not a day's job, and as a result, I'm not going to start bandying words with someone I sincerely reckon is a veteran on this platform, to say the least.

Secondly, I do admit that I may/may not have employed the services of AI (as ChatGpt is not the only AI available to humans), in making incipient edits. For that; my most sincere apologies!

Thirdly, I might be a lazy writer, but if there is anything at all I do consider an everlasting hobby, that would be writing. As a Logophile and etymophile (if there is anything like that at all) 😎

I am someone who is inclined towards accuracy and verifiability. However, could that be because I'm an accounting student? Who knows?

Lastly , I would like you to take a look into the penultimate message I sent you, as regards the origin of the term “Oga.” I would be highly honoured if this plea of mine is replied to in the affirmative.

Best regards, señor 🙇🙏

, Gemini22jnr (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your most recent edit earlier today. Your latest contribution shows that you have listened to the feedback Indy beetle and I provided, and the claims you made are backed up by the sources you provided. I hope you continue constructively contributing to Wikipedia — I wouldn’t still be here after 9 years if I didn’t think it was a special place. Part of what makes it special is that as the rest of the internet becomes more corporate, noisy, and artificial, Wikipedia remains unmistakably human. To that end, I’d much rather read articles/comments written by real people with a few grammar mistakes than AI-generated content that’s highly polished but unreliable and short on substance. (Thanks for taking the time to write your last comment on your own rather than using a chatbot.) If you have any questions in the future, you can ask me on this page or head over to the Teahouse or help desk. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback, sir. I'm truly grateful for such an elation-inducing reply, señor 🙇🙇🙇🙏🙏🙏 Gemini22jnr (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect NupediaWiki has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 23 § NupediaWiki until a consensus is reached. Janhrach (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder I’ve updated the draft for *LawConnect (legal technology platform)* based on your feedback. I removed promotional wording. I’ve just resubmitted it and would appreciate it if you’re able to take another look. Thank you! MarvinFathi (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarvinFathi, it's very curious that you're trying to create italic text using *Markdown* instead of ''wiki markup''. This is a common mistake made by large language models when they try to write wiki pages. Please note that continuing to pass off LLM output as talk page comments you wrote yourself could result in you being blocked from editing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 600 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rach.evans (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Phạm Minh Hiếu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

Thank you for kindly review my draft. I totally get the reason why it was declined, and I've been working on it.

I've removed all the potentially promotional terms in my draft. However, can you please take a look at it and help me review it once again to make sure that the issue is fixed?

Thank you!

Rach.evans (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rach.evans (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your draft. In general, I prefer not to review the same draft multiple times, because I find it harder to be fair about a draft I've already read before. Another editor will review the draft sometime within the next couple months (hopefully sooner, but I can't make any guarantees). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WOW, I just saw your note about ToadetteEdit being banned. I did put some more work into the drafts this week, and I'm sure you noticed. Hopefully a more objective reviewer will agree and accept, so thank you for resubmitting the draft for 4th edition. BOZ (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to thank you for taking an interest in the above-linked draft article. I noticed your note of waiting for the main space (Bite Me (album)) to be deleted, and it appears it has. Just sending a gentle note of this happening; again, I appreciate your time in reviewing the draft space (and seeming to approve it moving to main space)! livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved; page has been accepted and moved) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

I Trout You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlealt (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome and thank you for resubmitting @Pythoncoder. :) How close do you think Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters is to ready? BOZ (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DLJ243 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AustChina Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi @Pythoncoder: Thanks for reviewing my article submission.

You mentioned there are several issues with my submission on "AustChina Institute", including: 1) The use of informal tone: Could you pls give me an example of where I haven't used formal tone? 2) The use of peacock terms: Could you pls give me an example of where I've used a 'peacock term'?

I've also checked these issues you highlighted we two colleagues who also agree that the article that I've submitted is of a professional tone, neutral and should qualify as being in an encyclopedic format. But if you could give me examples of the 2 questions that I've listed above, it will assist me greatly to get a better understanding of your point and view and I'll be able to immediately correct the issue.

Thanks, much appreciated!

DLJ243 (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The decline message is a form letter and not all the text is necessarily relevant when describing the issues with your draft. As it stands right now, the article does a good job of showing how the AustChina institute sees itself, but what's missing is what independent sources think of it. Adding reliable secondary sources is also needed to prove notability. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place initially. You rejected this article because you said it sounded too much like an advertisement. I am writing an article about a company, and I tried to make it sound as neutral/objective and as little like an advertisement as possible, but that seems to be a difficult rope to walk. Do you have any advice on how to avoid this, or can you point to specific examples in my article that cross that line?

Thanks

BretDvr (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(answered on your talk page) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft:Farhan Ul Arshad request for format correction and mainspace move. Zona2 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User was globally locked for sockpuppetry —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

You have been trouted for: For draft:Rafael (name page), I think it should be accepted because it is a name page so it should not be merged into Raphael (given name). Rapolas and Rafał are name pages that are also article name pages that are versions of "Raphael."

Thanks, Rafael Hello! 16:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Lesser Scribe of Wikipedia

I can clearly understand the guidelines you posted, however I still am unable to understand what independent sources I can add regarding this specific topic. More than about a million people have registered in this specific server, and we can prove that, however according to this niche genre where minimum independent sources write about minecraft servers, I am unable to find a lot of citations except just voting affiliated third party independent linked websites. I need a clear guideline to this specific issue, and with all due respect do not require the same guidelines which tell me to add more sources, I understand that clearly however I think you get what I'm trying to say. Thank you. Help! TNTplayerTNT (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @TNTplayerTNT - Wikipedia:Notability is an English Wikipedia a guideline that states, that a page needs significant coverage in reliable sources to have an article. Unfortunately, it does not matter if, for example, someone’s YouTube channel has 300 million subscribers and billions of views if they are not covered by reliable sources. If your server does not have significant coverage, I’m sorry to say that it probably should not have a Wikipedia article then. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only the Tampabay news article is acceptable, but those people I'm pretty sure got there info from these little sources from organizations and such, and then printed them in main article. These seem to be credible sources that confirm the song, it was played in a Warner Bros. movie, and is used for pop culture references today. Especially if the American film institute catalog confirms this, I don't see why it gets shot down. Gabbeyjoe00 (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm 100% confident that all of that text except the last paragraph was written by a large language model. Please don't do that. Secondly, "It was in a popular movie" does not make a song/band automatically notable. You need to find more sources with significant coverage if you want the draft to be accepted. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4