User talk:Balabush

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Roger Allers have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, https://cluebotng.toolforge.org/?page=View&id=4475468"}]]}">report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Roger Allers was changed by Balabush (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.868128 on 2026年01月29日T05:46:53+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you! Balabush (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roger Allers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Greedycell (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ok, I'll add more sources. You can see in the "External links" section that there are additional websites listed there. Balabush (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes @Balabush, I did notice that, but External links are just that, they contribute neither to notability or verification, and are often used precisely because of that. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

OK, I’ll fix that. Balabush (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Would you mind having another look? I want to make sure I'm headed in the right direction. Balabush (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes it is going in the right direction. For the Gelderblom book, would you be able to give page numbers to particular points or is it an e-book that you are looking at? If it's a book then it's best to give page numbers but in your cases it would be relatively easy to implement, and I can guide you through one example. There is still a lot sourced to one website, so I still think that needs balance. If you can get a third major source then you are in a stronger position still. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't have the book at home. I might be able to try and get it from our library. I took most of the information and references to it from the German Wikipedia. I'm sure my father has a book or two about the city's Jews it'll take me a few days, but I'll ask him. In the meantime, could you explain to me how to put this in with the page numbers? Balabush (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

OK, so I've done a sample change for you. Have a look at the paragraph that ends "reaching 129 persons in 1864." And let us say that is on page 100. You will now see I put in a SFN for page 100, and obviously it's very easy to repeat that SFN for page 110, 227 and so on. How did I do that so quickly? Well, you had a ISBN for the book, I then used:

https://citer.toolforge.org/

Try it yourself with that ISBN number and you will see the middle section has a citation that replaces the text in "Further reading" and the magic SFN ready for use. Very easy. ChrysGalley (talk) ChrysGalley (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Can you take a look at what I did with the book Life of Gluckel of Hameln. Dulles: Jewish Publication Society.? The website you sent me was very convenient. Do you think I can use it for Die Stadt Hameln und ihre Juden as well? Because it's not really a book, but rather a website with many chapters and subchapters. Balabush (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes @Balabush, you got that right, and yes it is a nice tool, I use it a lot on my own articles. It works really well with ISBN and DOI for academic pieces, and usually quite well for websites. For websites obviously use the last box rather than the middle box. It defaults to a "ref name" convention, which is handy. See my Atlas of Brutalist Architecture via Edit Source, to see how I did this using <references> in the References section, there I had a mix of sfn and one-off newspaper articles, so quite like what you are doing. Obviously the output needs to be checked/adjusted sometimes. Also it sometimes mysteriously goes slow or stops working, but usually it's OK an hour or two later. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Great! I'll learn more, improve my article further, and ping you once I feel it's ready. Thank you so very much! Balabush (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @ChrysGalley, Could you please take another look at the article?

Unfortunately, my parents didn't have the book, so I had to use what I found in some archive, and the rest was based on websites. However, there are many websites that I added, and I also placed them in the correct paragraphs using the wonderful tool you showed me. Balabush (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Additionally, I thought about also translating https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Synagoge_(Hameln). There aren't many sources there, but it seems to me like an interesting and important article. Do you think they'll approve my article if it looks like the German one? Balabush (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks @Balabush - I have a quick look and it seems OK, or nearly OK. There are one or two minor changes I would want to make (e.g. we can't do "see Main Article" when it's on German wikipedia, but there are other ways to handle that), but I would need to do that later today when I have a big screen in front of me, it's not a 2 minute task. The Gelderblom book, looking at WorldCat it's only held by a few German/Swiss/USA/Israeli libraries, with the nearest to me in the UK being Hanover. However I did see this version held in the British Library, which I can access. It looks to be an earlier version, half the length? ChrysGalley (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Interesting, I posted in a group of Jews who are descendants of Hameln that I'm in, maybe someone has this book or another book that could help me read more in depth about these things. Hoping I'll manage to 'get my hands on' a book like that. Balabush (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

And of course, thank you very much for all your help. Balabush (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes it's totally fine to do a flat translation of an existing German article, indeed very much a supportive thing for you to do on behalf of this project. If you do this, you need, in the edit summary box, to put a few words to handle the technical copyright attribution issue, see WP:TFOLWP - it is just in the edit summary, not in the text itself. The rules on notability are different between German and English wikipedia, so the translated article must have ideally 3 secondary source to back it up. So the translator is still required to check the sources are OK for English Wikipedia. But I suspect here it may be easier still: if the New Synagogue is an officially protected / heritage building, since separately there is a rule that such buildings have "presumed notability". So rather than needing all 3 secondary sources, you just need to demonstrate via one reliable source that the building is protected. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Where can I see all these rules about which articles have notability? Balabush (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Big topic! So the top reference is here: WP:N, the extra-simple version is the WP:GOLDENRULE, basically 3 rock solid sources like books and newspaper articles. For protected building it is here: WP:GEOFEAT, so that's an example of a short-cut to some of the requirements due to cultural or national heritage status. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Cool, thanks! Balabush (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is very very cool! Thank you. Balabush (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ChrysGalley You wrote that: Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review.

If I accidentally created a draft, how can I move it to become a regular article? Balabush (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am referring to Draft:New Synagogue (Hameln) Balabush (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Balabush, yes from here the AFC process used for the above article is voluntary. Some people like to use it because it's interactive, others prefer to avoid AFC because it's slow. There is a separate process known as New Page Patrol which will apply here, this isn't interactive, someone will check the New Synagogue page and can send it back to draft if it's not ready or even in some cases delete the article (not a danger for you here though). Until that Patrol has happened then the page is not indexed, which means Google typically will not find it. To move that article to mainspace, also known as Article space, you need the Tools dropdown on top right. There is a Move option with a cross symbol. Then on the next screen there is drop down for New Title, and select the first one, (Article). I would also change the title to Hamelin for consistency. Then it's the blue move button at the end. That said, I would suggest you do this set of actions after submitting it for review, since that submit process allows you to add the Talk page projects and some other flags. I've added the template that should have been there which is {{Draft article}} and that gives the more obvious buttons for you. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

thank you for the explanation. I'm a bit confused though, you mentioned both submitting for review and moving the article to mainspace myself. Aren't these two things contradictory? If I submit for review, won't the reviewers handle the move themselves if it gets approved? Balabush (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Balabush - I think I could have explained that better. When you submit it for review all it does is put into the queue for review. While it is in that queue you can still directly move it to mainspace. Usually reviews have to wait weeks / months, so if you do the first stage of putting the draft into the review and rapidly (in the first 30 minutes or so) move it from that queue to mainspace then you can get all the tags and projects put on to the page, but legitimately you can then move it on to mainspace, and well before any reviewer actually gets to it. You still need to do a little tidy-up work removing some AFC headers, but it's just a few lines at the top of the draft. Alternatively if you prefer to have a review you can just leave it for the reviewer to do the tidying up work for you. There are some long-term experienced writers who put all their new articles via AFC, just because they prefer the review process, and are not in a hurry. Many other editors would take the view that AFC resources should be concentrated only on those very new to Wikipedia, who most need some help. There isn't a right or wrong to this, these arguments are both valid. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks again for the explanation. Could you review Draft:New Synagogue (Hameln) for me? The article after it I already published directly without going through a draft, and if you feel like taking a look at it just to make sure I haven't made any mistakes, that would be great. List of stolperstein in Hamelin. Balabush (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will have a look at the Synagogue draft later today, from first glance it is OK. The Stolperstein article - it relies on primary sources and a blog, so there is a high chance that New Page Patrol returns it to draft format due to a lack of secondary sources such as newspapers and books. However I'm not in NPP so that's just a guess on my part. Not a reason for drafting, but there are no categories on the page, as indicated at the bottom, which can be fixed, but will flag the article at NPP as needing attention. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Please do not introduce links to draft articles in actual articles, as you did to History of the Jews in Hamelin. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sure, no problem, thank you for the note. Balabush (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you again. Balabush (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @ChrysGalley hope you're doing well. I have a question about drafts. Am I allowed to take a draft that someone else created, edit it and improve it, and then publish it? Balabush (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes @Balabush. And that's both the long and short answer. The principle of Wikipedia is that drafts are open to all editors, all of the time, no-one "owns" a draft or a mainspace article. Clearly it is worth liaising with the other editor(s) to see if they are OK with that, in terms of collegiate editing and as a courtesy, but the reality is that many editors give up / go away and there is no further update or explanation. It would be better to rescue such a draft rather than let it get auto-deleted after 6 months. If the other editor(s) objected, then there would be a need for a consensual way forward but it is unusual for that to be an issue. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. I have now submitted a draft for the first time, I would appreciate it if you would look at it Aharon Geva Kleinberger. Balabush (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Balabush - thanks - so that is published into mainspace, rather than AFC, which is fine, however it is now reviewed by a different process, New Page Patrol, and I'm an AFC editors who is not on NPP, by choice, so I can't formally review this. NPP have different, though aligned, processes so I can't be sure what NPP will make of this new article. However the subject doesn't appear to meet the WP:NPROF criteria, so that means someone independent of the professor needs to talk about him, or things like book reviews. So I'm not confident that NPP will be OK with this. But you will hear from them in due course, and if they are adverse all they are likely to do is to re-draft the article for further work. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Okay. So you're suggesting I do publications like that in a different way? I didn't understand. Balabush (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

And can you look at what I did there on the talk page? And I hope it's okay that I'm bothering you about these things. Balabush (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Balabush - it's always OK to ask. The Talk page looks fine. The process here is also fine, it's a perfectly permitted one. It's a judgement call on your side really. If you are doing an article where you are not so certain of the notability requirements then AFC is slow, but you get the opportunity to discuss what is needed on the notability side. If you go to direct publication as here, then NPP will let you know what they think about it in due course. I guess NPP makes more sense if you are certain the subject is notable and you have some good sources. There isn't a correct answer here, just two different, viable approaches. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Aharon Geva Kleinberger when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 16:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europ Assistance. Deb (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I’ve now revised and resubmitted my Shashvat Nakrani draft based on those comments, including additional sourcing, dispute coverage, and recognition details. When you have a moment, I’d be grateful if you could take a quick look and let me know if there’s anything further I should improve. Thank you. LegacyWiki (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the revisions, the draft looks solid now, with good independent sourcing covering the founding, the dispute, and his recognition. I trimmed one redundant sentence in the dispute section, and I've accepted it and moved it to mainspace: Shashvat Nakrani. Nice work! Balabush (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you so much for your help and for reviewing/publishing it — I really appreciate your time and guidance. LegacyWiki (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your contributions to List of Stolpersteine in Kirchlinteln. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Okay, I'll work on it. thanks. Balabush (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Significa liberdade Could you take a look at the article now? I added sources and moved it back to the main space. Balabush (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Silvio Vujičić. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Fermiboson (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I see that you have been moving other peoples' AfC drafts to mainspace. Please note that, while this is by no means prohibited, there is a reason the WP:AfC project does not just let anyone review AfC drafts formally, and doing so requires a clear understanding of a lot of Wikipedia policies and sensitivity to a number of content issues which can be subtle, including but not limited to AI generated text and undisclosed paid editing. When you perform an action such as moving an article to mainspace, you take responsibility for the content you are putting in mainspace as well; I would urge you to exercise caution in doing so. Fermiboson (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks @Fermiboson for the explanation, and I take the broader point about AfC responsibility on board.

About this specific draft, I read WP:AFC and WP:V again with the draft in front of me. Every claim is tied to a source I checked myself (the Vizkultura and Telegram.hr interviews, Sanja Cvetnić's essay in Drugo More, the Essl Museum and Thingworld/China Triennial catalogues). His notability case rests on two National Art Museum of China triennials, an Essl Museum group show, FRAC des Pays de la Loire, and continuous Croatian press coverage from 2003 to 2025.

I do agree a few sentences read as inflated or generic ("one of the more intriguing figures...", "operating at the intersection of..."). I'm happy to rewrite those into something more concrete rather than insist they're fine as-is. If you can point to a few more passages that read that way to you, I'll fix them directly.

Take a look at the article now and tell me what you think. Balabush (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to David Shilbury when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 00:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you Balabush for reviewing and accepting Majdal Nateel, and for the helpful feedback along the way. Much appreciated. ~2026-41375-52 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, could you elaborate as to why you accepted 2026 Libyan protests, which only had a single source? 331dot (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @331dot, happy to explain. The draft itself only cited one source, that's true, but I checked which other sources that mention it exist online before accepting. This story has had substantial independent coverage from multiple outlets over several days: AP (via ABC News and US News), AFP (via The National), Al Jazeera, and Xinhua, among others. The draft just hadn't caught up to the sourcing yet.

Per WP:AFCSTANDARDS, a submission shouldn't be declined just because it's thin or undercited if the subject itself is clearly notable and verifiable, that's a "fix it" situation, not a decline situation. The test I applied is WP:AFCPURPOSE: would this survive AfD? Given the coverage, the answer is clearly yes. This isn't routine local unrest either, it's spread across multiple cities in western Libya, run for several days with escalation (protesters storming the Mellitah Oil & Gas complex), and includes explicit political demands for the PM's resignation, plus a US statement acknowledging the situation.

I left a note on the submitter's talk page asking them to add the additional sources, in particular the AP report on the energy complex incident, since that's a significant development the article doesn't mention. Happy to hear if you read the sourcing differently, but from what I found this clears GNG comfortably. Balabush (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for explaining; it's just rare to see a draft accepted with a single source, because it's hard to judge notability with only one source. You may be right in this case, though. Thanks again. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also be aware of WP:MURDERS; Death of Jamey Carney is correct, not "murder of....", because no one has yet been convicted of murder. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You're right... Thanks. Balabush (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply