Draft talk:Bottom friction

These are the sources I used, one of them triggered as bot

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/bottom-friction

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/viewdocId=kt167nb66r&chunk.id=d3_6_ch14&toc.id=&brand=eschol

https://icce-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/icce/index.php/icce/article/view/4241

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JC015963

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/973/1/012032/pdf

If anyone knows which one is the forbidden source, please either inform or edit the article. The bot was quite unresponsive to my request. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources in one by one to figure out which on has been deemed unreliable Fxmastermind (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was odd. None of the sources were rejected. Now for the inline ref tags Fxmastermind (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I put them as inline refs the bot was triggered again. How odd. And of course nobody is going to answer any of my questions about this. Most likely because you also don't know why it does this. Fxmastermind (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who didn't read the article moved it during an edit, where I was careully adding the sources

To find out which one was not allowed

You really should read an article before messing with it, and definitely use the talk page Fxmastermind (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left them a message but I think it's a bot Fxmastermind (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chippla's not a bot, really. Bot accounts have to be labeled.

What you submitted wasn't ready to be an article. You have to not just include the sources, but integrate them into the text. If you need help figuring out how to do that, just ask — the Wikimedia movement is about sharing knowledge. DS (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven thank you, @Hey man im josh please make @Fxmastermind understand. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 16:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a very long time since I created an article. I'm old and can't figure this out anymore. It used to be a bunch of interested people would show up and polish things off. I like to think if the effort spent telling me how wrong I am was used to edit the article, it would be done by now. lol Fxmastermind (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I put the sources inline the same bot warning came up I asked about in the first place. Fxmastermind (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Not a single person has responded to the original issue that caused this problem. Which still exists. Fxmastermind (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using the new article wizard

Helpful, but then the last thing I found was However, when you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by our volunteers. Reviews can take a long time, so please be patient and rest assured that your draft will be reviewed in due course. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. What a joke.

Seems like a lot of the procedures have changed here. Fxmastermind (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fxmastermind I’ve done serval good faith improvement on this draft, feel free to submit it for review, the submission button is on the article, load "desktop view" for that action. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks so much better now. I am sorry I thought you were a bot. I still don't know which ref triggered the bot that said one was no good. I also have no idea how to report this, but that isn't actually about improving this article. Fxmastermind (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I just checked the code for your changes. Did you do all that by hand? Or is there an automated/bot way to add all that info to the refs? It looks like a massive amount of coding. Fxmastermind (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using a script to add all that info?

And can I use it? Fxmastermind (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another source

Studies havefound the energy dissipation of wind-generated surface-gravity waves by bottom friction depends on the seabed roughness magnitude.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Energy-balance-of-wind-waves-as-a-function-of-the-Padilla-Hern%C3%A1ndez-Monbaliu/9fc29a79666537d2642358e50c91f0c6a097f778

I would add it but I don't know to run the scripts to make it correct, Fxmastermind (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went for it anyways. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last source is troublesome

Not sure how to label it. Fxmastermind (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]