Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6

src: jech.bmj.com

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6

WP: arsip AFC/R

Idea: starting next month, can AfC switch monthly archives divided into groups? Recently there is more demand per month - there are more than 200 records in May 2014, but there are already more than 350 archives in June 2014. This makes the page very difficult to load and edit, especially for users with an internet connection slow. Maybe (from July) divide them into groups of 200 or 300 requests? Ollie inc ( talk ) 02:47, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

• Parts appear to average about 850 bytes a piece. This means that if we want to keep the page load and archive size down to the 150kB line (which is well-grounded), we should store about 175 requests per page. However, AN and AN/I archives are often 700kB - 1mB in size, and administrators insist that this size page does not matter. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 12:12, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

• I will support smaller archive sizes in this WikiProject from the standpoint of the human factor (in particular: faster load time or reliable loading for those with slow or brittle connections), but I also agree with the essence of the AN/I Discussion: If a large archive violates the Wiki on the server, this should be fixed with code changes, not by reducing the size of the archive. As a "quick fix" can we go with filing twice a month since getting out of here? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 18:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6

Proposal: create our production script AFCHRW

So there are about two days left for this backlog drive, and no one seems to notice it until a new reviewer comes in last night that the production version of the script does not work on WP: AFC/R (returns the token error, see this screenshot). Thus, I ask Theopolism and all reviewers who have used the AFCHRW version of the script, do we think is ready to be a production script? I ideally think it is ready (there are many feature requests, but there are no exceptional bug reports for things that are not broken in existing scripts as far as I know) and want to see them launched as it is on or as close as possible to July 1. This will give us a month or two to work with the script and find new and other bugs before the next BLD is submitted. What is everyone thinking about this? - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 12:12, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I have been using the new script for some time now. The visual interface is less than optimal on my short, wide screen, but I have not posted bug reports for several weeks, and it seems to work smoothly. I have used mainly the "delay" and "comment" functions, so, others may have more to say about the submit/reject section. Is the fact that no one noticed the problem mentioned above with the old script means that it is rarely used? --Anne Delong (talk) 12:53, June 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • No Anne, that's just WP: AFC/R is rarely visited by those using the old version. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 13:13, June 28, 2014 (UTC)
    • Or maybe making redirects does not always require the use of scripts? --Anne Delong (talk) 13:39, June 28, 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 14:13, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

• Update : I just sent Theo email (he got a new job and did not watch much wiki now) and hope he'll see it and get back to him either here or through email.Ã, :) - {{U | Technical 13}} ^(eotoc) 14:13, June 28, 2014 (UTC)
• I updated the review instructions more than a year ago to reflect the fact that the helper script did not work in AFC/R and was told it was 'work in progress'. Many scripts ago, auxiliary script succeeded in AFC/R. It was very useful and created created redirects and categories of a doddle. There was never a backlog on that page, now there; probably because more effort is needed to answer the request. I have not tried a rewrite script so can not comment on its readiness, but if it works on self-support AFC/R. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 06:54, June 29, 2014 (UTC) The beta version
  • has a copy of the AFC/R script job (which I have posted PER to push life to fix the current problem), rewriting does not have support yet, but it will not be difficult having it call the AFC/R and FFU modules there is. I will try to prepare it today, unfortunately it seems we will not get enough support to make RW a live version of the script on the 1st... Fingers still cross over. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 12:05, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
• Support . I have used the rewritten version for most backlog drives and have not seen any problems with it. APITION (talk!) 14:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Does this still require support ? Because, if yes, I do. Fiddle Faddle 14:49, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Duplicate submission

Something to be aware of: I just found a draft article that was rejected because there was another submission about the same topic. I looked at another submission and it was rejected because there was another submission (the first)! Needless to say, both are abandoned. The third filing and ending in the main room, but less developed than the second. --Anne Delong (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

src: i1.wp.com

The empty post was our mistake

If there are one or two I would assume a simple mistake, but there are so many that I think it must be our fault.

What do people who make blank submissions expect to happen?

I suspect the answer is that they expect others to create an article (where they provide the basic title and that's it) or expect a placeholder to be created for them to create the article itself.

So, how do we set their expectations correctly before they click for review, and they set themselves up for a blank submission summary submission? Fiddle Faddle 09:57, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by isaacl, I have reported my proposed addition to the submission process at WP: Gadget/proposal. If this is approved, it will likely reduce delivery that has no reference - including blank delivery and test page. I know that Technical 13 is also interested in this topic, and the chances of having started discussions about it already I do not suggest that he wait until the backlog drive ends (sorry, T13). --Anne Delong (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Do not worry Anne, I'm not really in a position to do many things this week (or maybe next) because I have three final exams and one group project scheduled this week at school. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 14:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent, it does not take much time to deny empty submissions, and the drop-down template directs them to the Requested Article so it's not a big deal, really, but maybe we can change the words in the gray draft template, and some of them might read it. --Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: This is not the we time I'm worried about. This is a beginner who unintentionally bites. This submission has to be done for a reason, and it does not mean that everyone who created it does so by madness, ugliness or stupidity. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree that such pre-notifications would be better, especially since when the submission process backwards, empty shipments may be out of the question for some time, and when they are rejected and messages about "requested articles" are sent , users may have lost interest. There is a high possibility that a user who dropped in to leave an article request may never have the intention of being an editor, but timely information may leave him with a better opinion of Wikipedia. For others who actually plan to write articles and have just been sent ahead of time, it seems to me that after submitting their blank pages, they will continue to edit them, whether they have not been rejected or not. --Anne Delong (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Initial notification (at least for blank pages) will help all parties - beginner reviewers and users alike. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible mechanisms for blank pages

Try this for yourself:

1. Create an empty sandbox and make sure the {{User sandbox}} template is in it
2. Type stuff. Do not save.
3. Preview items. Do not save.
4. Send from the Preview panel
5. Notice there are two mechanisms of dialog between now and save, but be a new user and "leave page" and then "save"
6. Voila! Empty submission

I tried this after responding to Wikipedia: Teahouse/Question # Submitted_a_post _-_ content_showed_up_empty.3F and find inspiration. It may not be the mechanism that the victim uses, but this is surely the mechanism of a

Once Jackmcbarn identifies a mechanism to 'prevent' the folk form from submitting from the preview pane, I have seen fewer empty submissions. The question is, do I own or do I see what I want to see?

Since we have a vocal minority that tries to undo the AFC submission button suppression when the page is being previewed, I will explicitly request a consensus decision on the following Implementation

The new logic must be inserted into the template so that the CSS class is injected into the div if the page referenced template is in preview mode. For now the CSS class will indicate that it is related to the AFC submission template in preview mode and must by default in preview mode close the submit button. Instructions will be added to AFC Frequently asked questions/Template documentation showing how users who lost old functionality can recover the behavior they want.

Hi. I received the following message after I rejected the article:

"Thank you for reviewing my article Narrows Center for the Arts (draft).I am a fairly new Wikipedian, so I will let the draft for a while and help clean up other articles for now to learn more about acceptable articles before trying again.I am correct that my article will not be deleted but will remain in my subhages as draft? Thanks again! skatoulaki (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC) "

Is he correct that the article will remain on his sub-page as a draft? thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Page has been moved to draft: space to Draft: Narrows Center for the Arts. It will sit for about 6 months and then be considered for the rapid removal of G13. I've deleted some promotional text, but it's not very similar to an essay, so it's almost ready for article life. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the author has six months and will be warned before deletion. Drafts can be programmed to store them in the user's sandbox longer than that. I agree with Graeme Bartlett that it might be well received before then. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC banners need to be removed as part of a user-user process page with AfC banners eligible for G13 as a draft space and wikipedia's chatroom article. If the article is edited (in addition to bot-like maintenance tasks), reset the clock at 6 months. â- ::: So, I do not know, if the user intends to continue working on it, but slowly, it's okay. If "for a while" means more than 6 months, then user use may be best. The advantage of leaving it where it will happen if within six months the article slips into the back of the user's mind then they will get a useful reminder that their work is there at that point. Rankersbo (talk) 07:39, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Comment ( One15969 - Chris troutman - Rankersbo ) Multiple point orders:

1. The G13 rule reads: Disapproved or unposted articles for the unedited creation page for more than six months. There are no exceptions for bot-like maintenance tasks. If edits cause the page to register a new revision, the clock is reset.
2. The main automated editing process (HasteurBot) takes the rule further by only operating in 2 prefixes: Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation and Drafts: . This means that the automated editing process will never alert users or nominate for G13 on userspace pages.

This means that G13 page users who qualify are perview editors manual to determine whether they should be stored or handled by G13. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Reflinks is no longer

See Wikipedia: Village_pump_ (technical) #No_more_reflinks where, apparently, people have known all this for some time. Of course it's still on the left margin. Click on that margin item and see what happens!

The thing is, we need this tool. Stacks of piles there to add weight to return. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Closely - I just finished installing ref tags about several hundred URLs in preparation for running Reflinks - it will take ten times longer to add titles manually. --Anne Delong (talk) 14:08, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

This is anger! A kind of revolution in order... The most useful tool ever made for Wikipedia dies today. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 20:10, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

I used it extensively for years. My annoyance has been broken, as you can see from my comment there, where I see a sense of complacency and a feeling of superiority. Lucky it did not die during the June backlog drive, but, shit, this sucks. We need to mobilize! Fiddle Faddle 20:25, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the atmosphere of apocryphas in the thread, that's why I did not post it there. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, from time to time, is stalked by hyenas who will look annoyed and interpret it as a weakness. Before moving to kill. Better to rest than to be too busy. The only way we'll get it back is if the original creator released the code or came to an agreement with WMF... It might take years. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 20:38, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to kill . I have more stamina than amazing women and men imaginable, and smart enough not to break our secret rules. Of course, the act of a very unwise person to allow Reflinks to die. I blame the allegations of people's wisdom. Too often we get the lowest common denominator. I will now ignore the empty links. We will suffer form linkrot. I care, but will not let this affect me. Fiddle Faddle 20:44, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

• I understand everyone's frustration here, but I encourage everyone to act slowly. Worst case scenario I created a new tool as part of my Fall C # class. Something WILL comes in to replace it. So I encourage you to be virtuous. :) - {{U | Technical 13}} ^(eotoc) 21:28, July 1, 2014 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 21:39, July 1 2014 (UTC)

• Like Fiddle Faddle 21:39, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

• Someone with time and technical expertise may want to check IEG Grants, who can actually pay money for things that would benefit the encyclopedia, but who are not content-makers. --Anne Delong (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And back

It seems to have migrated and has returned. I found by a dazed click on the link. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

What a relief! However, according to the discussion on WP: VPT, it runs on the developer's personal computer via a virtual server, so this may be temporary. --Anne Delong (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Message boilerplate copyvio

During Backlog Drive I have several authors who ask why their design was rejected as copyright infringement when they own the copyright itself. I suggested that boiler messages be fixed to mention such situations, and Technical 13 prompted me to post a draft including it, and also a close paraphrase. So, here it is.

The submission appears to be taken from --Website--. Wikipedia considers copyright infringement very very and can not accept copyrighted content from a printed website or source. Please note that copyright protection is automatically granted to all works, whether it is confirmed or not. Unless otherwise stated, consider that most content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publication on Wikipedia. (Paraphrase cover from copyrighted sources is also not permitted.) Copyrighted content may be credible if it meets the Wikipedia guidelines; however, your submission should be written in your own words, and in a sustainable prose. If you own the copyright and want to use the material on Wikipedia, you must first release it under a free license.

Feedback on whether this is a good idea or how to rewrite a better message will be appreciated. I'm afraid that at the moment, with new material, it's a bit congested. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 12:55, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

This is good. I will change:

• "Files appear..." -> "Important parts of the draft appear..." (because not always the whole draft)
• "can not accept copyrighted content" -> "can not replicate copyrighted content".
• "Your submission should be written in your own words" -> "submissions must be written with the words of the editor himself" (to prevent WP: OWN)

If we want to lose some text, a bracket about the near paraphrase might go away, because the point is more vague than the other. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:18, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

• (conflict edit) For comparison, the words are:

This submission appears to be taken from - Website - . Wikipedia considers copyright infringement very serious . We can not accept copyrighted content taken from printed websites or sources. Please note that copyright protection is granted to all works automatically, whether or not confirmed . Unless otherwise stated, assume that most of the content on the internet is copyrighted and not suitable for publication on Wikipedia. Copyrighted content may be referred to as a trusted source if it meets the Wikipedia guidelines; however, your submission should be written in your own words, and in a sustainable prose.

Regarding the successor, when I say mention paraphrasing, I mean in a way like: "The editor should summarize the source of the material in their own words..." The substitutes I might suggest are:

Submissions appear to be taken from - Website - . Wikipedia deems copyright infringement very serious and can not accept copyrighted content from a printed website or source. Note that copyright protection is automatically granted to all works, whether this is declared or not . The editor must summarize the material sources in their own words, in a sustainable prose, and cited as a reliable source. If you own the copyright and want to use the material on Wikipedia, you must first release it under a free license.

- {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 13:25, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant. So the draft we all can agree on is:

Some or all of the drafts appear to be taken from - Website - . Wikipedia considers copyright infringement very very and can not reproduce copyrighted content from a printed website or source. Note that copyright protection is automatically granted to all works, whether or not it is . The editor must summarize the source of the material in their own words, in continuous prose, and cite the material as a reliable source. If you own the copyright and want to use the material on Wikipedia, you must first release it under a free license.

It seems to combine ideas from all three of us. BethNaught (talk) 13:35, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Great! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:53, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, this message is usually accompanied by a quick deletion template, so it's usually time-lapsing for authors to view this rejection message. Furthermore, Templates: Decrease Afc does not encourage users to see "comments left by reviewers" if the submission has been marked as copyvio. To be effective, we need to update the Template: Afc also decreases. Mz7 (talk) 15:39, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

• Mz7, adding the descending reason to {{Afc decline}} is already on the to-do list. :) - {{U | Technical 13}} ^(eotoc) 16:04, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

• The existing {{Afc decline}} template already supports having different text if there is copyvio. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:53, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

@LukeSurl: I am aware that there is a different text for copyvio. The normal text for all other reasons than copyvio directs the author to review comments left by reviewers on the draft page. If the submission is rejected as a copyright infringement, the text actually states that copyrighted information is unacceptable, and does not direct the author to see comments left by reviewers. In this section, it has been proposed that boilerplate messages for copyvios are updated. This message will not be very effective unless we redirect the author to view the message or we update the AFC drop-down template with the new text. This seems to be in the discussion (thanks Technical 13). Mz7 (talk) 17:54, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand how authors can "see comments left by reviewers" if pages have been deleted per CV. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:54, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: Proper. It's paced with time for authors to view messages before they are deleted. Instead of updating the boiler for {{AfC submission}}, we need to update the text in {{Afc decline}}. Mz7 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- I would say other than instead of instead of , but yes, already in the todo list: 0 - {{U | Technical 13}} ^(eotoc) 19:05, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I forgot to mention an update to {{Afc decline}} in the OP. Thanks Technical 13. BethNaught (talk) 19:18, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Agree --Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

page location of BackLogDrive

I see articles about surviving people being rejected for not meeting the minimum standards for inline quotations, when inline quotes do not seem necessary. For example, an article was recently rejected with the comment: For a living person we have a higher standard when referring. Every fact you state requires a quote with references that are about them, and are not dependent on them, and are in the WP: RS. When reading Wikipedia: Biography of living people # The trusted source of my understanding is that only facts that are likely to be challenged or controversial (tends to cause arguments) require this level of reference for living biographies. Otherwise, footnotes are not required at all, and only references to build notations are required for the acceptance of draft articles. Do we have a clear statement about this to review the article? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:42, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, we have a clear statement about this near the top of the review instructions. 1.Avoid reject the article because it is correct using common references to support some or all material. Content and source policies require inline quotations for only four specific types of material, the most common direct quotation and debate materials (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living people. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:14, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

The specific "four kinds of material" policy is described in Wikipedia: MINREF # When_you_must_use_inline_citations, if that helps. That may be related in the review instructions as well. --j? e decker ^talk 23:23, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Starry, That sounds like a bad descent explanation. The decline may be fine but you are correct that we do not require quotes for every factual claims in the BLP, and anyone who leaves the comment should leave a note. We have a duty not to mislead novices in terms of policy. Gigs (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

It's about

Teso College Aloet

The school page article was received some time ago. I have tried to fix it but the comment on the page still exists. How did they go?

Thanks Josire12 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Josire12: We did not answer this kind of question here. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 05:26, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I think it's quite unhelpful to notify new users that they have asked the question in the wrong place, without saying the right place. Josire12, if you really believe that the problem with the article has been solved, then please delete it yourself. They will be the starting line in wikicode. Remove them, describe your edits in the edit summary. If you want a more friendly answer, please try the Tea Shop, where there is hope for friendliness and help. Cullen ³²⁸ Let's discuss this 05: 46, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

The maintenance tag is still completely valid, a quick reading of the article confirms this. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:52, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

After deleting all the tags, I've added {{advert}} because the article tone needs to be slightly improved. I will record this in the article talk page. APITION (talk!) 13:48, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

After' descent '

Do we have statistics about what happened after the article was rejected? Fiddle Faddle 14:33, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing specific that I know; However, historically it depends on the type submission/draft and goes like this:

1. - A less important and overly optimistic article about a product/organization/website/uninteresting person. The author realizes the error of their way and goes elsewhere.
2. - As above, but it also includes partisan screeds, very complicated word salads and original or highly-imaginative-new-evolution-science-of-true-epic-proportion-yet-still-based-on- WP: CALC. The author (s) repeatedly argue the validity and notability of their subject and relentlessly resend them, after making trivial changes, in the hope that the shear bloodymindedness will win the day. Reviewer becomes so deprived of its rights by filing like a zombie that will only be OFF! That they came to see them with hatred and wanted to see them burned with fire in a big hole.
3. - Items that should probably not be rejected, or could be saved. The author (s) have given up, but, only occasionally, the small and secret cabal of reviewers and former reviewers keep this into the main hall. And there's a lot of fun...

In the end, everything that stays down will end in CSD # G13. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:14, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

This will be worth learning. I suspect that partisans and crazies make maybe 25% of the inflows and they end up getting

I am using a beta script and it seems that it will not let me put the template, and I do not want to send it in my own name. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bellerophon, you can do it in anyone's name... {{subst: Send | user = username to send as }} - {{U | Technical 13}} ^(eotoc) 15:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, learn something new every day. All completed. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I just modified the template so | user = is no longer needed... {{subst: Submit | username to send as }} will now work. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 16:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Technical 13, I hope this does not mean that the old format with user =, which is less cryptic and usually used by many editors, will no longer work. I do not see the purpose of making this change into something that has gone well. Bellerophon, I use rewrites, and it allows submissions under the username. It also does not disable the original scripts, so you can use them both if you like. --Anne Delong (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Anne, do not worry, it's fully compatible with using old methods as well. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 16:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I'm using Beta instead of rewriting, because I want to be able to handle WP: AFC/R using scripts. Beta seems to let me use scripts to submit pages with a draft template, but if the page does not have any type of the template, the script just runs automatically and stops. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Legoktm, have you ever come back to encourage MediaWiki talk: Gadget-afchelper.js live? - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 16:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Template: AFCHD/u

@Technical 13: can you remove the link to submission/draft from Template: AFCHD/u please. They do not work well and are not very helpful because all they do is make longer messages. All that the user needs to know is that they have replies on the help desk. I'll do it myself, but I'm afraid I'll break something in preload. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 08:08, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the template still has a link to the actual thread in the help desk if it is provided? That's very important, because just telling new users will not go to the helpdesk there is no guarantee that they will find the answer to their question. I have long worried about users not taking a reply (either on the help desk or on my talk). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont) 08:38, July 5, 2014 (UTC)}

• What exactly is the problem? I can not fix anything until tomorrow night when I come home from out of state. I agree it looks ugly (I think so before I start working on it). I can make it a linked channel to fix it or if there is community consensus, I can only delete it. Hopefully there are no protected templates anywhere because I can not edit them. - {{U | Technical 13}} ^{(e o t o)} 11:49, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

@ Ritchie333 and Technical 13: Yes, it will still contain a link to the appropriate section of the help desk where the reply has been given. I request a link to the submission to be removed or canceled when using the comment link in the help desk question. The submission link is rarely seen formatting correctly. Sometimes it has unfamiliar brackets around it, sometimes making it as a redlink, sometimes making it as a direct link to the main room. I do not know why this is, but actually, when deemed contrary to the purpose of this template, a link to submission/draft is not required. Bellerophon <

Source of the article : Wikipedia