W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Balabush

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.



January 2026


left|25px|alt= ↗ 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.
{{clear}}
Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ClueBot NG (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

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

25px|alt=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.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> Greedycell (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: History of the Jews in Hameln ↗ (May 10)


<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">'''Draft declined'''{{pb}}50px|left ↗Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation ↗ has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.{{pb}}
<nowiki> </nowiki>'''Feedback'''{{pb}}The reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:
{{divbox|gray|3=This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion ↗. The draft requires multiple published secondary ↗ sources that:

Please add references that meet ''all three'' of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.|}}<!--
--
-->{{divbox|blue|3=This is declined, with reluctance, since it is almost entirely sourced on one personal blog site, juedische-geschichte-hameln.de. Just 2 minor sources which do not link to it. I can see it is a well researched website, but the notability requirement is for multiple reliable sources, and to avoid personal websites, see WP:RSSELF ↗.}}

'''Next steps'''

'''Need help?'''

'''Scam warning'''
ChrysGalley (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC decline-->

: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)
::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)
:::OK, I’ll fix that. Balabush (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
:::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)
::::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)
:::::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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
::::::::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 <nowiki><references></nowiki> 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)
:::::::::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)
::::::::::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)
:::::::::::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)
::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::And of course, thank you very much for all your help. Balabush (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::Where can I see all these rules about which articles have notability? Balabush (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::Cool, thanks! Balabush (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

{| style="margin: 0.4em 2em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo ↗
| <div style="background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;">Hello, '''Balabush'''!
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! ChrysGalley (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)</div>
|}<!-- Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation -->
Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC ↗

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: History of the Jews in Hameln ↗ has been accepted


<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:var(--background-color-success-subtle, #dff2eb); padding: 0.5em 1em; color: inherit; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''History of the Jews in Hameln ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!'''<br />

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />

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 {{AfC talk/C percentage}} of accepted submissions, well done! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.

'''Future articles'''
<div class="autoconfirmed-show">
<div class="unconfirmed-show">

'''Next steps'''
Thanks again, and happy editing!
ChrysGalley (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC accept-->

:This is very very cool! Thank you. Balabush (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
::@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)
:::I am referring to Draft:New Synagogue (Hameln) ↗ Balabush (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
::::@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 <nowiki>{{Draft article}}</nowiki> and that gives the more obvious buttons for you. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::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)
::::::@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)
:::::::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)
::::::::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)

Links to draft articles



25px|alt=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 ↗. {{#ifeq:{{lc:}}|yes|An edit has converted these links, into links to the not-currently-existing page (redlinks) where the draft will be placed if it is eventually accepted. Thus the links will automatically become valid links aimed at the correct target when and if the draft is accepted.|These links have been removed.}} Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-draft-link --> - Arjayay (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: New Synagogue (Hamelin) ↗ has been accepted


<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:var(--background-color-success-subtle, #dff2eb); padding: 0.5em 1em; color: inherit; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''New Synagogue (Hamelin) ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!'''<br />

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />

The article has been assessed as '''Start-Class''', which is recorded on its talk page ↗. Most new articles start out as 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.

'''Future articles'''
<div class="autoconfirmed-show">
<div class="unconfirmed-show">

'''Next steps'''
Thanks again, and happy editing!
ChrysGalley (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC accept-->

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

June 2026



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to :Aharon Geva Kleinberger ↗ when you modified the page, you introduced {{cl|Unknown parameters|unknown parameters}}. Just because you specify {{para|some_param|{{var|some_variable}}}} does not always mean that variable will display. The {{para|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.<!-- User:Zackmann08/uw/Unknown-params-warning --> '''<span style="color:#00d5ff !important">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94 !important">mann</span>''' (<sup>Talk to me ↗</sup>/<sub><span style="color:orange !important">What I been doing</span> ↗</sub>) 16:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please comment



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

Your thread has been archived



{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Balabush'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|What to do about a draft that looks like cross-wiki promotion?}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to What to do about a draft that looks like cross-wiki promotion? ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}
<!-- KiranBOTmsgID:1360726207 --><!-- User:KiranBOT/Teahouse_archival_notification -->

Shashvat Nakrani draft



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)

: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)
::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)