User talk:217.127.250.215

@DreamRimmer: what wasn't constructive about my sorting the disambiguation type to human name disambiguation? 217.127.250.215 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any confusion; I am removing the warning. DreamRimmer (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She Code Africa

Hello! I read through the verification guide and I'm wondering why an article I wrote has the ``need needs additional citations``` when there's about twenty inline reference from notable sources. Thank you all for your time, here's the article by the way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She_Code_Africa Hannydevelop (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for starting the article. Yes there are some good references in there already, but there are also many unsourced paragraphs making remarkable claims for the organisation. Rather than cluttering the article by tagging each unsourced claim with a "citation needed" tag, I placed the more general tag at the top.

There's also a problem with the quality of some of the sources cited. This reference for example is from Business Day (Nigeria), which like many newspapers hosts both legitimate journalism and WP:Sponsored content, the latter of which is not considered a WP:Reliable source on Wikipedia.

Many of the other references cited are from WP: Primary sources, written by people who are involved with the SCA project, such as this reference, which appears to be reliable, but not independent.

So in short, the article needs more reliable, independent sources cited: quality, rather than quantity.

I hope that's useful. 217.127.250.215 (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Right to silence in Australia did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Also, your edit was reverted because of our rules on adding links to the bold reiteration of the title. The rules can be found at MOS:BOLDLINK Huggums537 (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This drive-by template with RedWarn was quite unnecessary. A quick look at my edit history would show you that I use edit summaries for most of my edits. A few words of "an edit summary would have been helpful on your last edit to Right to silence in Australia, thanks" would have sufficed, and I would have gladly agreed. 217.127.250.215 (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.