ToadetteEdit

Heyy mentor am Clara can I please have more information about the south African Acapella group. The Soil --Mfaziey Wakher (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mfaziey Wakher, what article do you mean? ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The name of the group is TheSoil it's a South African music band please provide me more information and I would to learn and know more about you☺️ Mfaziey Wakher (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mfaziey Wakher, I do not work in these topics, and I could not provide more information. You can find the more information by finding sources, and if you wish, add them to The Soil (band). You can know about me by visiting my userpage. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, ToadetteEdit,

I just noticed that you have returned to editing after your WikiBreak. I have taken two extended WikiBreaks during my 11 years as an editor and I know that if I hadn't gone away while I was under a lot of stress, I probably would have said things or done edits that I would have regretted.

Wikipedia is a fun hobby but it's good to just see it as that, a hobby, not a lifestyle. We are lucky to have competent editors like you who are willing to devote some time to work on this project. But it's good to see your time here in the long-term, not short-term. I know things haven't gone the way you wanted them to but that doesn't mean that they will never happen, it's just that trust takes time to develop, especially among longtime editors who have seen more than their share of well-intentioned editors who couldn't handle additional responsibilities and let it go to their heads. While we keep our eyes out for vandals, experienced editors who go a little mad with power can cause much more damage to your fellow editors, and especially newbies, than the more obvious trolls. But keep doing the good work you're doing and it will happen in time. Have faith! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just read your response to BusterD (above). Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what privileges you have or how long you have been here, none of us are immune from criticism. If you look at my own talk page at any random time, you'll find more complaints about me than "thank yous". It's good that you have found areas of the project that you feel experienced in and comfortable doing, but just know that most criticisms are about ones edits or actions, they aren't about you as a person. And all of us, even those who have been here since the beginning, can always improve as editors. It's not easy, but it helps if you don't take these remarks personally. But, as I said, sometimes, it isn't easy sometimes. That's the best advice I can offer. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Toadette,

You reviewed my submission on Mondex Corp, the art restitution firm, and I'm wondering whether you can help me get to publishing the page. Here is what you noted:

"only two sources contribute to notability, and the rest does not discusses the subject in detail to pass NCORP"

A couple questions for you – do i not need two to contribute to notability? Does not the company's key role in various very notable cases qualify it for notability?

If you can help me further, I would greatly appreciate it.

Rechts EditorRechts (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EditorRechts, Good evening. I took a quick review of the draft. Yes, I declined it five months ago as not meeting notability guidelines (company specific to be precise). The guideline states that the article should have multiple reliable sources. AFAIK, at the time of reviewing, I only saw 2 potential sources, while the rest are simply mentions. Because I expected the article to be nominated for deletion had it been accepted, I declined it. Note that the company notability guidelines are stricter than the general notability guidelines. It is recommended to have at least three sources.

I am willing to help, but due to other work, I couldn't at the moment. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for getting back. Okay, let me ask:

1. I have referred to multiple reliable third party sources – why are you saying there are only two?
2. what is the difference between a source and a mention?
3. As to notability – I am involving myself in the field of restitution and they are one of the two or three most significant firms or organisations active in this contested field. Do I need three sources to state such?

EditorRechts (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the draft Draft:Mondex Corporation, I initially saw that there were two: Mondex to return valuable Dutch paintings to Holocaust survivor’s descendants and "Mondex Corporation et Mélina Wolman accompagnent les héritiers de David Cender, dans le processus historique de restitution de l'œuvre de Marc Chagall intitulée Le Père, spoliée pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale par les Nazis - LE MONDE DU DROIT : le magazine des professions juridiques". These sources are reliable and independent and discuss the subject in detail. A difference between a source and a mention is that the sources reference the subject once or twice without anything significant. As for your third question, you can cite these, given that these sources are valid enough to establish notability. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying there are only two articles from reliable third party sources that mention Mondex' specific work in detail, and you cite the two (The Globe and Mail article, Le Monde Du Droit Article). There are other sources included in the draft article that are reliable and independent press publications that explicitly mention Mondex' work and describe it as critical to the case. Here are two examples (there are more but I only include the two to get straight to the point):

1. Ben-David, Daniel. "The miraculous story of the Chagall that was lost and found and lost again". www.thejc.com. Retrieved 2024-02-02.
2. Abrams, Amah-Rose (2016-06-13). "Nahmad Denies His Modigliani is Nazi Loot". Artnet News. Retrieved 2024-02-02.

On point three – notability: publications like ArtNet, the leading publication on art world news, states in multiple articles that Mondex' work is critical to one of the largest restitution cases currently underway. Another element is the crucial changes to the restitution law in the Netherlands: the handling and outcome of the Kandinsky case, which was Mondex' case, was central to the change in a national law. This would not have happened without Mondex. That is why I stated, in the opening paragraph:

"its practices have led to changes in restitution law and practices in various countries."

I also backed up that claim with the Monde Du Droit article.

I feel I am getting closer – if you are able to help in any way, please let me know. EditorRechts (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ToadetteEdit. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of battles in Belgium".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Toadette,

Please could we discuss the reliable sources I need for my article?

Perhaps if I explain the history, you would understand my issues.

Thanks! AMumFriend. AMumFriend (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AMumFriend, which article are you referring to? ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply