User talk:Tacyarg

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your observation regarding my draft article. Following your comment, I have confirmed that the existing Wikipedia article titled "Ahmadu Yakubu" is about the same individual as my draft on Late Lt. Col. Ahmadu G. Yakubu. My intention was never to create a duplicate article, but rather to provide a significantly expanded and better-documented biography of the same person. The current article contains only limited information, while my draft includes additional, well-sourced details on his early life, military career, distinguished polo career, public service, honours, and legacy. It also includes relevant images where appropriate and in compliance with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. As the existing article is protected and I am unable to edit it directly, I respectfully request that my draft be considered for merging into the existing "Ahmadu Yakubu" article, rather than being treated as a separate article. I believe the additional content will greatly improve the quality and completeness of the existing biography for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. I would be grateful for your guidance and consideration, and I am happy to make any further revisions necessary to facilitate the merge in accordance with Wikipedia's editorial policies. Thank you very much for your time and valuable service to Wikipedia. Kind regards, Anthony Rufus Draft Contributor Anthony Rufus (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony Rufus. I don't think that Ahmadu Yakubu is protected, so you should be able to edit it, unless you knew Yakubu personally, in which case please make an edit request on the article's Talk page. If you do edit the article, please make sure you give reliable sources for any information you add. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do the editing and I hope it works Anthony Rufus (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and guidance, Tacyarg.

I appreciate your clarification. I knew the late Lt. Col. Ahmadu G. Yakubu personally, so I understand the need to avoid directly editing the article due to the potential conflict of interest.

Instead, I will prepare an edit request on the article's Talk page, supported by reliable, independent sources, so that uninvolved editors can review and implement any appropriate improvements. My intention is simply to improve the accuracy and completeness of the existing article, as it currently omits a number of notable, well-sourced aspects of his life and career.

Thank you once again for your assistance and advice. Anthony Rufus (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 75, May–June 2026

• New partnerships: The Telegraph, Marg, The Tribune newspapers
• Tech tip: Expired partnerships

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 14:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Tacyarg and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hello Tacyarg, I am TrevorHiggins27, an employee of Philip Yun. I am disclosing my conflict of interest. I placed undisclosed COI edits on Philip Yun's Wikipedia page which you flagged. I have since gone through the proper Edit Request process and volunteer Spintendo has reviewed and implemented the corrected edits. I am writing to ask whether, in your view, the issues that prompted the flag have been sufficiently resolved and whether you would be willing to remove it. I appreciate your time and thank you in advance for your help. TrevorHiggins27 (talk) ~~~~ TrevorHiggins27 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks for asking, see Philip W. Yun Talk. Tacyarg (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You have flagged the wikipage as seeming to include 'original research'. I would be most grateful if you would indicate which sections are of concern so that I can improve the page. Binopippa2 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Binopippa2. Thanks for asking here. There's a few things that worry me about the article in its current state - and I do thank you for adding references. Firstly, there is some commentary, such as So successful was the venture; dramatic increase; It would be wrong to characterise; It is in this context that we can understand (three of these in the same paragraph). Wikipedia articles should be written neutrally, without added commentary. The latter is generally thought of as original research. The sourcing is poor (albeit improved from no references at all before you started working on it). The current 8 sources are:

• something credited to the archives and museums service, but unclear whether it is a publication or a display;
• a pamphlet by one of the heads of the school, which is not an independent source;
• another pamphlet by the same person, but described as "uncredited", which makes me wonder how you know it is by him;
• a draft speech, which is necessarily unpublished;
• an obituary of one of the heads of the school written by his wife, which is therefore not independent;
• a pamphlet published by Sunderland Social Services, which at the time of publication ran the school - therefore also not independent;
• and a newspaper article from 2005, which is ok as a source.

So not very many of those citations are to reliable, published, independent sources.

I'm also worried - and this predates your involvement in the article, I think - about the statement This article contains text from the Wellesley Nautical School Home Site, by kind permission of the author. There's something about this on the article's Talk page, but it is not clear whether the author of the Wellesley Nautical School Home Site gave proper permission for their text to be re-used, nor what that research itself was based on. The site is down now. The Wayback Machine may have an archive of it, but it's not working for me at the moment. I will try again.

Hope that helps. I'll copy this to the article's Talk page, as discussion is probably better there. Tacyarg (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)