User talk:Bunnypranav/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

Order of the Lesser Scribe of Wikipedia This award is given in recognition to Bunnypranav for accumulating at least 350 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Asymmetric Epicyclic Gears Award
		This award is given in recognition to Bunnypranav for accumulating at least 50 points during each week of the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Modules C++ page review

Hi, you reviewed my page Draft:Modules (C++) and rejected it on the grounds that there were insufficient sources, and I responded to your message on my talk page but did not get a response, so I am asking here. I do not see how it is the case that there are insufficient sources - nearly every paragraph contains a reference and those that do not do not really need one. The previous reviewer commented that there were insufficient sources, however my most recent edit explicitly was to add more references, and I think that there are plenty. Could you please give a detailed explanation on what is missing? 24.50.56.74 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey IP, sorry for the delay. I had seen your earlier message but could not reply due to IRL duties. Regarding the draft, although you seem to have added a couple more sources (full edits decline to decline), they are not reliable. Vast portions are only sourced by forums, docs and other such sources which are not only unreliable, but also not do any help to the Wikipedia:Notability. Some examples are cppreference.com, docs.oracle.com, and gitlab.kitware.com. The draft also reads like a WP:NOTHOWTO violation at this stage, which is of course not acceptable (apologies for not including this in my comments) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong with citing cppreference.com as several other Wikipedia pages cite or at least reference it too, on the topic of C++. Same with docs.oracle.com, as I am citing official Oracle documentation (only for topics related to Java). I only cite gitlab.kitware.com because I am directly citing from the developers of CMake that header units are not yet implemented. Also, I do not see how the page is a WP:NOTHOWTO violation, as I am not writing the page to be a tutorial on how to use modules, it is meant to be an informative page describing what they are and how they function (it was essentially split off from Precompiled headers). Not to mention, several other Wikipedia pages on the topic of C++ are written in the same style - they contain descriptive examples of code to illustrate the topic in question, but that doesn't make it a how-to page. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe those sources are suitable for a small documentation for a technical thing, but they do no good in proving Wikipedia:Notability of the subject. See the 2 examples for nothowto violations:

• To link the module partition [...]
• [...] thus, to import code belonging to [...], one simply has to write import A;

Secondly, WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:WHATABOUTX are some useful venues for you. Just because some other articles cite the sources, or are written in a certain way, doesn't mean you can do the same here.

At this stage, the content is howto and essay-like, with not at all enough sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability, and the content is not sources according to policies. I would ask you to improve the content, or if you feel it is good enough, feel free to resubmit. I am not willing to revert my decline at this stage. Thank you. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I have to be honest that I was overwhelmed when I saw the AfC backlog just now! Your work at articles for creation is incredible. Thank you so much for coordinating and being part of the June Backlog Drive eliminators. I miss reviewing drafts, and I hope I am able to get back more actively again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the this! :) Although you could not do much this drive, I have seen your prior contributions, and still am amazed at the scale of your work, thanks for that as well! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you thank you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Request on 15:18:12, 1 July 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by TollVic

• TollVic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Trustworthy (digital vault) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Bunnypranav. Could you offer any specifics that caused this article to be rejected? I've revised it a few times, and I thought this version would satisfy the previous similar feedback I'd received about it. I'm unsure how to improve it now. Thank you!

TollVic (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey @TollVic, I have declined the article since the tone is not exactly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially the Features section. Also, the sources does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Although many sources are cited, they are not independent and reliable. The CBS one may be considered, but that alone is not enough. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bunnypranav. Thank you for the note.

I don't understand your comment about the Features section. There is one sentence that mentions the document categories. There is a second sentence that mentions some of Trustworthy's tools. What exactly make you decide it wasn't neutral?

Can you explain what led you to conclude the sources weren't independent? (Because they are.)

I'm happy to keep working on this, but I'm not sure how to address the feedback so far. TollVic (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Would these wording revisions help with the Features section?

Trustworthy is used to store encrypted personal information, including identification documents, tax records, insurance policies, mortgages, and financial data. Its documented capabilities include issuing automated reminders for document expirations, enabling mobile uploads through an in-app scanner, and allowing users to configure access controls for family members and advisors. TollVic (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks better, but the Its documented capabilities include can be made a bit more non-promotional. Provided each one of them is reliably sourced by independent reliable sources where the article/page is not sponsored by, related to, or written by the company. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Something like this? Each part would be properly sourced.

Trustworthy is used to store encrypted personal information, including identification documents, tax records, insurance policies, mortgages, and financial data. Tools: automated reminders for document expirations, mobile uploads through an in-app scanner, and custom access controls. TollVic (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Second line, Tools: is not grammatically correct in a paragraph of prose. I'd say something very simple like It has automated reminders, xxx and xxx. That's it. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Lesegothami on Wikipedia:Verifiability (02:02, 8 July 2025)

How do i create my own website nd permanent link --Lesegothami (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Lesegothami: Wikipedia is not a place to build a person website, see WP:NOTWEBHOST. If you want to write an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia, then do have a look at Help:Your first article ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)