Hello, Pygos, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am your mentor and you can ask me any questions on my talk page or check out our help pages if you need help. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
Greetings, 141Pr! I am glad to join the Wikipedian community, and I look forward to editing and improving Wikipedia. Pygos (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for going over the citations! I added the citation because the article demanded a nonprimary citation in that place. I am not sure if it has already been fixed, so I added another citation anyways. However, if the existing citation is indeed high quality, I am happy to remove my citation. Pygos (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I nevver noticed that tag there. I've now removed it since you provided a secondary source; you should remove such tags also when you fix issues like that. Sorry for the bother. Graham87 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Chromium pentoxide in ethyl acetate.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pygos. In addition to the bot's message above, I would add that this is a nice image that you would have been better to upload to Wikimedia Commons, with a license like CC BY SA 4.0 (the default), or PD if you don't mind people using it without attribution to you. Only images on Commons are available for other-language versions of Wikipedia to use, which is why they are best placed there. I note that this particular image is quite low-resolution. If you have a higher-resolution version available, then it would make sense to upload that but maybe you can't because you cropped the image from a larger version from your camera? If so, you should have chosen to retain exif data, which helps with the provenance of the picture. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion! I will upload it onto Wikimedia commons. By the way, the image was indeed cropped from a larger one. Pygos (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. These guidelines say:
Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources (reviews) is the encyclopedic style.
Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest. Many new editors cite themselves mainly. That behavior is unacceptable.
Please pardon my ignorance, but I am confused about what comment you are replying to, but thank you anyways! Pygos (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I was pointing out that
"==Applications==
"Kolbe electrolysis has found applications in converting biomass into biodiesel. It has the advantages of producing hydrogen and bicarbonate as side products.[1]
"Kolbe electrolysis can also be used for grafting of carbon electrodes.[2]"
These are not applications. Just 2 of hundreds of mainly academic papers on Kolbe electrolysis. Do we really want general readers to conclude that Kolbe is useful for biomass conversions? . Apologies for being so pushy and rude, but new editors and young chemists rarely understand the predicament we find ourselves in at Wikipedia-Chem: a tidal wave of literature.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to come across as a complete hypocrite. For specialized topics like tin triphosphide, chromium(VI) oxide peroxide, there is often no option than to cite primaries. But for big topics, I and others strive for secondary (reviews), or better still "tertiary", i.e. textbooks (reviews of reviews). For editing organic, inorganic, and industrial themes, my go-to sources are textbooks/encyclopedia residing on my laptop: March's organic, Greenwood and Earnshaw's inorganic, Ullmann's Industrial Chem. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I happen to have read the first book, and I also have access to the other two. I will try to consult the most reliable sources possible. As always, thanks for guiding me on citing sources! Pygos (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Smokefoot!
I am currently having some trouble in adding organic reaction schemes onto articles, with the questions specified below:
1, I am unsure of what format to use for the reaction schemes. I am currently editing Wikipedia on a mobile device (Android). I have read the following articles:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing and Molecule editor, and it seems that there are no listed chemical editing devices suitable for Android. I currently use Kingdraw to draw chemical reaction schemes. I am not sure if that is acceptable. A sample of what Kingdraw reaction schemes look like is shown below:
(Note:this image was taken via screenshot, I am not sure if this is acceptable for Wikipedia articles)
2, I am unsure of what copyright status should the reaction schemes from literature (like the one above) be published under. Can they be uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons, or are they considered others work and not of Public Domain even if I redraw them? From the articles that I have seen, it seems that the reaction images are all under the Creative Commons licenseship and labeled as "own work".
I highly appreciate your efforts in responding these questions above.
Pyrgos. I noticed your recent additions to Azulene. The use of .jpg files makes for serious problems, as indeed can be seen above in this thread with the screenshot, which in my full-size computer monitor sends the image off the right of the screen. We much prefer .svg files for chemical diagrams and .png files are also acceptable but less good as they don't scale as well on different devices. If you use .jpg, then you must include the "thumb" parameter as I have done here on the right. I could work with you to produce the chemical drawings needed: for example by collaborating in one of your sandboxes, if your Android device can't use any of the drawing programs mentioned at MOS:CSDG. Thoughts? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now looked at the website for Kingdraw. They suggest that it can produce industry-standard output files for the drawings. Does that include the sketch file format (.skc) originally specified by Molecular Design Limited or Microsoft's enhanced metafile .emf? If so, then converting these to .svg is easy for me to do and collaboration would be simple. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out! I have found that kingdraw can generate files of kdx mol molV3000 cdx png jpg formats. Which formats are acceptable? I will also revert my edits on azulene temporarily to prevent confusion. Pygos (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, .kdx files are Kingdraw's own proprietary format, so not useful external to that program. Mol and molV3000 are now open source (they were invented by MDL) but only work for a single molecule. ChemSpider, for example, allows you to download any molecule from their database in that format, so you would never need to draw from scratch anything you found on Chemspider. CDX files are ChemDraws proprietary format which can't be used directly within Wikipedia but would work as a way to share files between ourselves by email, since I can convert them to .skc files and hence to .svg. .png and .jpg are standard for any image, not just chemistry but lose all chemical connectivity information, so while you can go .skc / .cdx / .kdx to .png or .jpg, it is impossible to go the other way! Bottom line: if you are uploading files for use in Wikipedia, you should always use .png files for chemistry, never .jpg, and make sure you set pixel widths (or use "|thumb") when you place the diagram into a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned before, this is less than ideal because as Help:Pictures says, we prefer not to force images to have a specific size as they don't always look good on all the devices used by readers. SVG files are vector graphics and have many advantages: they are usually very small and they can be edited in a text editor or by free software such as Inkscape. I have uploaded dozens of chemistry files as .svg conforming to MOS:CSDG: see my files on Commons. The chemistry ones use ACS settings as specified in our manual of style and look very good even when viewed at small size. For now, I suggest you go back and delete all your .jpg and upload .png instead. Note also that Commons is chasing you about copyright issues. You must make it clear where you got the image from and whether it is your own work (which means you drew it yourself in some image-generating program) or is a derivative of a published work: the latter only being OK if you quote the source and can confirm that the source stipulates it is released under a valid CC license (as many but not all modern journal articles are). Apologies that this is a long post but I'm afraid the learning curve on Wikipedia is steep! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed explanation! I will try my best to adhere to the standard practices of Wikipedia. I will put my sandbox here so we can communicate more easily:
Greetings, Smokefoot! I have another minor question on citing sources. For instance, if I were to cite Sciencemadness Wiki, a tertiary source, should I cite the wiki itself or the citation link on the wiki which would lead to a secondary source? I appreciate your reply. Pygos (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Smokefoot and I will have similar views, which is that the clue is in the name. Wikis are never reliable sources in themselves, although they may cite ones that are. They are user-generated and like IMDb, even if they are extensively used by readers they have no guarantee of accuracy e.g. because at any given moment a vandal may have inserted misleading information. I took a look at a random page on Sciencemadness and was given this one on potassium hydroxide which has no references at all, despite clearly being a very well researched and important compound! In other respects that page was similar to potassium hydroxide, especially in the Chembox. Draw your own conclusion: mine is that Sciencemadness should not be touched with a ten foot pole. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CFC11 inventory 0.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading File:Revised aporphine synthesis route.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oxygen difluoride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fluorosis. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Aza-Wittig reaction, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi Pygos! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi Pygos! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thank you for you help with the organic catalysis articles. Some are dated. Most consist mainly of primary references: the area is so mature that our articles could be rely almost exclusively on books and major reviews. Many of the articles imply applications when in fact almost none exist. Some promote various "pioneers". So, good luck dealing with this huge, sprawling topic.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CFC11 inventory 0.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please remove this image for me, as I am unable to add the {{Db-author}tag to it for some reason. Thank you! Pygos (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Revised aporphine synthesis route.png
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Thank you for pointing out! However, this image is based on a previous, slightly erroneous version by another Wikipedian under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0, (
Squaramide catalysis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
A disambiguation page isn't needed since they aren't related.
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lithium Carbide (disambiguation) 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 may be deleted.
Hello, Pygos!
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 Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,Safari Scribe! My intent for creating this disambiguation page is mainly to differentiate between lithium acetylide and tetralithium carbide, which are often referred to the same name as lithium carbide: https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB79852924.htm
If you deem these two topics to be too remotely related to have a disambiguation page created, what would you suggest me to do in order to clear up the possible confusion? Thank you! Pygos (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article title would be converted to a redirect. You can do this yourself, in fact. When you finish merging the material, just replace the entire contents of the carbohydrate chemistry article with a single line:
#REDIRECT [[Carbohydrate]]
Or if you want to be more specific, you can redirect it to a section:
#REDIRECT [[Carbohydrate#Carbohydrate chemistry]]
(of course, don't include the <nowiki> tags in the source, like I did above to illustrate what to do).
White phosphorus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Greetings, Safari Scribe! I am trying to split the article Red phosphorus from that of Allotropes of phosphorus. What have I done wrong that didn't adhere to the procedures of article splitting? The copyright problem is indeed very serious and I have not noticed it while pasting it from the original page. I will reword both right away. Pygos (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a question. As the original content on Allotropes of phosphorus didn't face copyright warnings, could it be that Indiamart pasted Wikipedia content directly onto their page? Pygos (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If India mart copied Wikipedia, then the copyvio isn't needed and will be overlooked. I will check it in the Wayback to know which first existed. Above that, you need to add more content like you did in White phosphorus, reword the split, add more citations. I trust you always write well. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!10:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Safari Scribe! I was very confused by this statement on a book: "Several crystalline forms of red phosphorus exist. Hittorf’s phosphorus (also called violet phosphorus) is a well-characterized form of the red allotrope"Housecroft, Catherine (2018). Inorganic Chemistry (5th ed.). Pearson. p. 511. ISBN978-1-292-13414-7.
The current image of red phosphorus's structure doesn't do a good job in illustrating its difference from violet phosphorus. Is it true that violet phosphorus is simply a crystalline form of red phosphorus (which is supposedly amorphous)? If so, perhaps structural changes have to be made to this article. I would like to hear your opinions on this.
@Pygos, it's correct. Were you talking about this image anyway? There exist several crystalline forms of red phosphorus and Hittorf’s phosphorus is one of them, although it is an allotrope listed along the white and the red. In this publication, They said, "Red phosphorus usually exists as an amorphous form and can be transformed to crystalline red phosphorus (called Hittorf's or violet phosphorus)." My understanding is that the violet phosphorus is gotten from the red one and comes in a crystalline form. If stated otherwise in the article, then remove it. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's this image: , which I believe is the indistinguishable from this image about violet phosphorus:Hitorff's phosphorus structurePygos (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So should I put violet phosphorus (along with the other crystal form fibrous red phosphorus) under the article red phosphorus? Pygos (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pygos, violet phosphorus is another allotrope of phosphorus like the white. However it's gotten from the crystalline form of the red phosphorus. If there is a need to mention it in the draft, it's fine. Please calm down, breathe, and write adequately because there is no deadline. Pygos, to say this now, write everything you want to write—with proper citations—and I'll review it from the sources you cited. I am becoming leader like, "Pygos, fast! Let me accept the draft immediately". Also note that confusion may arise but it's nothing, chemistry changes a bit and we have experts that can also correct a few things later. Forget about the old writing you may have seen there and face the current reality from your newly identified references; they're the key. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!15:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I will take my time. It seems that I cannot access your source through Wikilibrary because I am not yet a six months user though (to be fair, I am still quite a noob). May you send it via DOI (so I can access it through Scihub) or any other means? Thank you! Pygos (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pygos. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Greetings, Safari Scribe! I am curious about how you detected the content overlap with Indiamart? I have recently been granted a trial of the NPP right and want to check such aspects. Thanks! Pygos (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am recently concerned about content generated by AI showing up on new articles. Are there any tools that may help detect those? Pygos (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is any tool for that, but texts generated by AI is purely known; it'd reflects the reading. I would advise neutralising or removing in whole. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!08:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schenck ene reaction, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Reconrabbit was:
Several statements do not have references. Also, some images are presented without captions and it is unclear what they are depicting.
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Red phosphorus 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 may be deleted.
Greetings, Reconrabbit! I will fix the citations problem asap. However, is it that image captions are necessary for every image? Some images that have no captions are described by the syntax above, like:
"The structure of red phosphorus contains the fragments illustrated below:
"
Some images depict the same thing as the image below it, just from a different angle to help understanding, which I doubt would require its own captions:
And yes, I have added the image captions in the draft submitted, but your answer to the above question will still be greatly appreciated. Pygos (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red phosphorus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi Pygos, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Reconrabbit were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Better sources are needed. Scribd and Dalal Institute are not reliable sources for this topic.
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Styx rule 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 may be deleted.
Styx rule, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi Pygos, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
), so I am not exactly sure under which copyright status should my image be. Pygos (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
