User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Question about Declined Wiki Page

Hello. Thanks so much for reviewing my Wiki page so quickly. So, I’m really new to this as in this is the first one I’ve ever done, & I officially have a whole new respect for Wikipedia. This thing is no joke. Just to make sure I understand correctly before I spend another 3 hours doing this, you’re saying that I need to use my own verbiage from an article I referenced, & then cite that article’s URL instead of copy/pasting & using the URL as a cite. Hopefully that made sense. ColbyBurnette (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@ColbyBurnette: yep, that's pretty much it — don't copypaste from a source, but rather summarise what the source is saying, and then cite them as reference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You’re the man. Much appreciated. I’ll get right on it. ColbyBurnette (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

JoJo

JoJo confirmed via her Instagram stories that her and Dexter broke up. I don’t know why you deleted that Change, it happened last month and No one added it so I did 75.183.91.10 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing whether it happened. I was saying you added an unreferenced statement about a living person, which is not allowed (see WP:BLP). That's why I deleted it, as indeed I explained in the edit note. By all means add it back, if you wish, but only when supported by a reliable source. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from Jirvinho Aarons Brazilian (20:43, 25 December 2022)

How to post your article on Google --Jirvinho Aarons Brazilian (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jirvinho Aarons Brazilian: sorry, I've no idea what you mean. This is Wikipedia. You may be able to publish a Wikipedia article here (see Your First Article for advice). It may then get indexed by search engines, incl. Google, and appear in their search results. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 Online events: New: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Geofocus East Asia Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2022 See also: Editing For Effie collaboration with the Smithsonian, January 8 & 9 (global event) Tip of the month: De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Not "Reliable sources"

Hi there, Thank you for reviewing my draft so quickly. I've asked the 'Teahouse' for details and was told that my unreliable sources are Wikipedia itself, as well as IMDB. If I simply remove sections of the draft (and/or find substitute sources) will the draft then be approved? Regarding this: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." Thanks! Queenlily2222 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Queenlily2222: ensuring that the draft contents are adequately supported by reliable sources, and removing anything that cannot be thus supported, is certainly the way to address the reasons why the draft was declined this time around. That said, I cannot promise that it will be necessarily accepted even then, as it may have other things wrong with it. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sebastian Delfi

Hi there!

With reference to your last message on the page, the page has been changed completely with the guidance given by you and eagleash including adding more reference. As it has been many months trying to publish this page and it's close to the end of the year, could you please review this page once more. I greatly appreciate the note that you had left on the page and have done my absolute best.

Yours sincerely, Apollosouthpaw Apollosouthpaw (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Christian Lavernier

Dear @DoubleGrazing

I update the DOB as you suggest. Thanks for your help. Please let me know if it is ok or I have to made other changes.--Kastalia81 (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Kastalia81 (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Sabasun

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

It would great if you could explain this please:

• Comment: This would be an obvious target for A7 speedy deletion, as there is no assertion of any real noteworthiness. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

May I know, what still wrong in this info please?

I've put the reference as per @Dan arndt advise.

Thanks

TukangSunting (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Gholamhossein Saber

Hi @DoubleGrazing I hope I have addressed your comments. Please take a look. Thank you, @Vdastpak1 Vdastpak1 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello DoubleGrazing,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Golyan Group Publication issues

Hi there.

Thank you for your review and feedbacks. My apologies for repeating similar mistakes. I would like to understand and learn from you on how I can improve my writing.

Thank you. Aswin.Shrestha (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Unusually, we disagree, albeit mildly

I promise I am not in personal disagreement with you. I do understand the points you are making. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: okay Mr Mystery Man, you've piqued my interest — pray tell, what is it we disagree on? :)) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That YouTube personality. He can go to AfD if accepted, if that is what folk feel 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: yeah, saw your comments there after I'd replied here. Your approach seems entirely reasonable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the reluctance to accept it. I detest this type of personality almost as much as I despise motivational speakers. But we might as well let it through and let the community fight over it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent same here. And it seems these 'famous for being famous' types invariably have good publicists advocating for them. Probably not coincidentally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Which is really why it needs to be accepted in order to go, once more, to AfD, and let those who wish fight to delete and keep it. I hate that I think it just scrapes over the bar. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Elverhoj Art Colony

Thank you so much for reviewing my draft. I'm quite new to this and more fluent with Wikidata. Hoping that I've attended to all of your suggested edits/improvements. I'm about to read up on when to use inline external links. Never? Clearly I want to link to all the things! Thanks again for your kind review.

MorelyLaNYS (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Note about Declined Wiki Page Letts of London

Draft:Letts_of_London

Ref your comment >This could well be notable, but the sources cited are almost all primary, and many offer only passing or no mentions directly of the subject, and therefore are insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. Also, the tone is promotional. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)<

1 You say this is promotional in tone. You are mistaking 'not negative' for promotional. The author is in no way connected with the industry or the company. There is not much that is objectively negative about the company. Neutral can be positive - and that's not the same as promotional.

2 There is a lack of in-depth material on this company online, in part because the company initially suffered because of the internet. You say the sources cited are primary. To be clear here, there is one citation - and yes, it's primary. There are secondary sources for the same information, but I suspect they sourced the information from the primary source too. This is normal when referring to sales information.

3 The article contains virtually every online reference to the Letts company. There is an existing article about Thomas Letts which contains a lot less references and falls far below the standard being applied here. To say that there are insufficient references is begging the question. For many topics, Wikipedia is the primary reference.

Please note that there are 17 references. 4 are primary. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5901:4349:E64D:6569 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Even the related Filofax page has LESS references.

4 Letts is a major manufacturer of a culturally significant product. If you can find any factual errors, please fix them.

Request on 21:14:10, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Addingcontentagain

• Addingcontentagain (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a short question on the comment regarding sources you left for the proposed article, namely that not one of the sources were notable enough. At this point, I must say I'm struggling a little, why is it that coverage in Wired isn't deemed notable enough? Being new at this (i.e., creating Wikipedia entries), I'm struggling navigating the requirements here. Would appreciate pointers or (hands-on) suggestions on what to do here. Thanks! Addingcontentagain (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Addingcontentagain, that's because the Wired article discusses recommendation systems in general, but doesn't provide significant coverage of the ACM RecSys event, mentioning it only in passing. As I've explained in this short essay, for a source to count towards notability it must meet all the requirements at once, ie. be reliable and independent and provide significant coverage of the subject. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Quite helpful indeed. Would the language matter, i.e., would a reliable, independent, and significant source in German fulfill the requirements for an article on English Wikipedia? Thanks! Addingcontentagain (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Addingcontentagain: no, the language doesn't matter, nor do the sources have to be online, as long as they otherwise meet the criteria. (If citing offline sources, this advice is useful: WP:OFFLINE.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jayanth gowda11 (08:04, 7 January 2023)

Please check the page of Erik tan hag His current club name has been changed to some other club but it should be Manchester United --Jayanth gowda11 (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for review again

Hello. Please review again this fixed draft resubmitted at

―Applsdev (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Applsdev: as explained on top of this page, I don't normally re-review drafts on request. Firstly, it's a way of bypassing the review 'queue' (which isn't really a queue, but rather a pool), which IMO isn't fair on the other drafts awaiting review. Secondly, it's usually also in your draft's interests that more than one reviewer looks at it, so that it gets the benefit of more than just one opinion. Hope that's okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks so mutch for your explains. ―Applsdev (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)