Jump to content

User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Draft:R.R._Group_of_Institutions

hello its more than 12 plus hrs in review what's going on please tell me how long it will take

Wikicont12 (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

DoubeGrazing, I know this is going to come as a shock, but this account is the sock of a blocked user. Best Girth Summit (blether) 10:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: whoa! No one could've seen that coming... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

inline citations

Hello there! I have followed the guidelines (or thought I did) for citations but they do not appear in the reference list below, which clearly means I have misinterpreted somehow. Please could you advise so i can resubmit with your requested edits?

Many thanks and best wishes! ContributorAcademia1 (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ContributorAcademia1: I don't know if this is the source of the problem, but the first thing I noticed is that you've wrapped the reference templates inside <code> and <nowiki> tags. These have the effect of neutering templates, ie. stopping them from working. You'll need to remove these wrappers. It may be easiest to just revert your last two edits to my review. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Yes I read that I need to put these codes in and the references in-between in order to make them appear below in the reference list. I tried various ways and then when it didn't worked tried publishing in order to see if that was needed. Ok, so now I just have to work out how to revert to two versions prior haha. Thank you! ContributorAcademia1 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! My article disappeared - I updated and resubmitted. Can you help me?? ContributorAcademia1 (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@ContributorAcademia1: which article disappeared? If you mean your draft Draft:Loli Kim, that's still there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
haha oh it must be a Monday morning. It's strange, I couldn't find it anywhere. Found it now. How long do you think it will be until the article is reviewed? Will you be the reviewer? As I added the citations now, I worked out how finally! ContributorAcademia1 (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Stiven Mikhail

Can you please help delete this draft. It has been over 6 months. Either help fix it or delete it. I have replied numerous times to numerous wikipedia admins that I am not a paid Editor. I created this profile years ago to try and make a wiki which I didn't and I don't know how to change my status. Please help Ildivino1010 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ildivino1010: why are you asking me? I've nothing to do with Draft:Stiven Mikhail (that I can recall, at least). In any case, I'm not an admin, so couldn't delete it if I wanted to do. And given how many users have been involved in editing it, the only way to get it deleted is by opening a deletion discussion, see WP:MFD for instructions (although be aware that these have quite a low success rate, so might not go anywhere). Why are you keen to have this deleted, can't you just leave it and move on? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This page was published before. I made an edit according to the company website and it was flagged because my username is under paid editor. Iv told the admins numerous times that I'm unpaid and it's a mistake and it's been stuck for months. All I want is to remove what I edited and have it back the way it used to be and published. I keep getting a ring around. If there's anyway you can help I would appreciate it. I feel bad because it was my edit that had it removed. I'm no pro at wiki , I don't know the rules and relegations. I just quoted from a site and it's been flagged. Ildivino1010 (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, DoubleGrazing, but I think I understand ildivino1010's dilemma and what they are asking for, and I also think you will know better than me if my suggestion to them might keep everyone happy. Pinging @Ildivino1010 who can hopefully say if I'm right about what they were trying to explain.
Ildivino1010 created Mikhail's article, which was at that time a single unsourced sentence. The article was promptly draftified. They were then asked if they were a paid editor; they said they were not, but that they work at the same company (I think) as Mikhail. It was explained that that is paid editing and that they needed to disclose. At the same time, a paid contributor notice was placed on the draft for Mikhail.
Ildivino1010 is upset because they feel that the paid contributor notice implies, or other people will see it as implying, that the draft is untrustworthy and that Mikhail's reputation will be damaged. They want to remove their contributions from the draft so that the notice can also be removed from the draft. I think they may also have been able to find the draft on Google (I found it quite quickly via this CAT, which comes up #11 on Google hits for Mikhail's name for me) and don't know how to mend the damage they feel they've caused.
It seems to me that ildivino1010's contributions to the article have been extremely minor and in fact basically no longer exist. Since so many other people have edited, ildivino1010's work is effectively gone, and they no longer wish to work on the draft, could we simply remove the paid contributor notice (thus solving ildivino1010's issue)? After that, perhaps ildivino1010 could alert other contributors (via talkpage ping?) that they no longer wish to work on this draft, so if anyone wants to take over editing then they should do so before the 6-month auto-delete happens. Does that seem reasonable? StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
God bless you Ildivino1010 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @StartGrammarTime: thanks for your message, but I still don't get what this has to do with me, or what is being asked of me? I haven't had anything to do with this draft, as far as I'm aware of (or if I have, could someone kindly remind me?). As I said already, I couldn't delete it if I wanted to (which is what @Ildivino1010 was asking for). If someone wants to try their luck with a WP:G7 request, be my guest, of if they want to take it to MfD, by all means have at it, I won't stand in anyone's way. Likewise, nobody needs my 'permission' to remove a maintenance tag from it, if they feel it's not justified. Just edit as you see fit, as if I wasn't even here. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@StartGrammarTime is there anyway you can help get this back on ? I have no idea what I am doing to be honest Ildivino1010 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ildivino1010: "back on", meaning what? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
published like it used to be Ildivino1010 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ildivino1010: you came here asking for it to be deleted ("Can you please help delete this draft. It has been over 6 months. Either help fix it or delete it."). Now you want it published instead. Can you see why I might be confused? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand 100% why you can be confused. I spent 3-5 months writing on here with multiple admins who declined the draft. If I can pull it up , I believe you declined it as well which is why you are involved in this. I was told by a friend that getting it deleted and making another one would be easiest way. So I came on here and messaged all the admins who declined it to delete it and nobody responded except you. But now I see @StartGrammarTime so I figured maybe someone is willing to help get it published. I'm sorry about all of this. All I ask is either it be published like it used to be which was very simple page or delete it so I can maybe get someone to make a new one. I hope this helps Ildivino1010 (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ildivino1010: nope, doesn't really help. I didn't decline this draft (or if I did, please link to the diff, as I genuinely don't recollect). In fact, I don't show up at all, that I can find, in any of the logs for Draft:Stiven Mikhail or Stiven Mikhail. And like I said already, I'm not an admin, so it's pointless asking me to delete anything, as I can't. In short, I think you're barking up the wrong tree altogether. Now, if I could ask both you and @StartGrammarTime to kindly take this discussion elsewhere, given that it doesn't involve me, that would be fab. Thanks in advance, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Cemre Demirel's biography

Hello, I edited the page for Cemre Demirel. Are the sources I added sufficient? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Cemre_Demirel Morse667 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Princ Stefano Černetić

Dear DoubleGrazing, I am running out of arguments, in the world of science everything is often black and white, but in people's lives there are all colors and many angles, even the person to whom things happen often does not understand. We are asking you to do the right thing and delete the article. The moment has not yet come to write about Prince in Wikipedia, history is still fresh and there are many debates. You, as the person who edits Wikipedia, I believe you understand my thoughts, History has not yet told everything about Prince, and tabloids and popular headlines are not relevant. Let us not judge the Prince until we know the truth. Unfortunately, I have no better arguments. Thank you for your time. Justesforprinc (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank You from Helpdesk - Talk:Max Verstappen

I wrote to the helpdesk twice regarding Talk:Max Verstappen which after realising lacked consensus lead me to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton - my first ever AfD which included 5 featured lists which was quite scary (I was so afraid I'd make a procedural error). Thanks to your contributions we were able to come to a consensus and I just wanted to leave this as a thank you for making my first experience on Wikipedia as an editor awesome. Even if the user DoubleGrazing doesn't approve of IP-editing ;) 159.242.125.170 (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Request on 14:26:05, 21 June 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Bdicoccosix


Can you give me more specific feedback on my page submission for Green Hills?

Bdicoccosix (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Syed Faisal Ali

You marked a reference on Draft:Syed Faisal Ali, "Navigation". biharvidhanparishad.gov.in. Retrieved 2024-06-23., as {{failed verification}}. Please take another look at that link, https://biharvidhanparishad.gov.in/Members/Member_List.htm Syed Faisal Ali is listed on line 49. His name is shown with the honorific "Shri" and the start and end dates of his term of office. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

for the page i entered called "çatma mescit hammam"

hi, i'm working on improving the page since it has been declined. but i researched some of the topics for the hammam by going there myself, i couldn't find any references to cite in the article. For example, the sayings for how the hammam were constructed are anonymous and are known gossip material around here in Istanbul since the 20th century. what should i do about it? thank you for reading. Beyza Yogurtcu (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Beyza Yogurtcu: unfortunately we can't accept "gossip material", original research, or things like that; we can only accept information which comes from reliable, published sources. My advice is to leave out anything which cannot be referenced with such sources. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi again, i resubmitted my draft for the Çatma Mescit Hammam. I went ahead and found sources that can qualify as references and changed the tone of the text. I was wondering is there anything i could do to improve it further? Thank you! Beyza Yogurtcu (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE MY DRAFT

{{Red|DO NOT DELETE MY DRAFT!

Rejection for lack of in-depth citations

Hi there,

Our article for our volleyball team was rejected due to a lack of in-depth citations. There are a number of other teams based in the UK with little or no citations that do have Wikipedia articles. We provided citations from independent sources - but I'm wondering if there is any further specific advice? Given, as I say, that there are a number of other similar sizes volleyball teams with their own Wikikpedia article.

Thank you, 87.75.169.53 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor,
I'm not sure which draft you're referring to, so I can only answer in generic terms. It is perfectly reasonable, but nevertheless incorrect, to assume that just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, more of the same can be created. Many articles have problems, which nobody has yet got around to rectifying. Some of these go back many years, and may have been created before the current rules on referencing, notability, etc. were put in place. Nowadays, all new articles must comply with applicable rules, and are assessed according to those, not by comparing to existing articles.
Sports teams are treated as organisations, and therefore the relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. Please study it, and consider whether you can find sufficient sources to satisfy that standard.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Techistentialism discussion...

Thanks for your note on my draft Techistentialism. A few weeks ago I posted on the forum Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents & TeaHouse (posts since removed) about an article which was self-published called Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools trying to understand how it was allowed with terrible citations (two which did not even mention the group at all), and does not pass any notoriety policy I could find. The responses I received were basically that the 'author had hundreds of edits' and 'he must know how to write a wiki page,' thus, it was ok. Really? So I showed them my draft on Techistentialism and they thought it was ok to self-publish also! And given my success on other pages getting approved via the AFC process, I would be ok. I told them I doubt it...and you came to prove me correct. Can you explain the difference in standard between me and the author of Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools, because I am confused again and not getting a good explanation and apparently bad advice. Thank you again for your assistance. Geraldine Aino (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Geraldine Aino,
I'm not quite sure what the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools article has to do with this? It was created by Wikipedialuva, who is autopatrolled (ie. able to create articles without being subject to new page patrolling). If you have an issue with that article, perhaps you need to take it up with Wikipedialuva, or whatever other course of action you see fit.
This (Draft:Techistentialism) article needs to demonstrate its own notability. My point was/is that all the sources (apart from the predatory one) are written by the person who came up with this concept/term. That does not make it notable, even if he did then manage to write about it in four different publications. I draw a parallel here to neologisms, where the notability guideline WP:NEO requires that the neologism is not only used extensively, but needs to be discussed extensively. In this case, it's not even clear that it is used by many, besides its 'inventor'.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok no one mentioned Autopatrolled to me before now. Seems that is the difference. Thanks for clarifying. Geraldine Aino (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

New Article declined: Gauranga Das

The draft of the article "Gauranga Das" was declined. The Subject has significant coverage.This is a beginning stage, I believe the article can always be improved. Do all references have to be added at this stage itself? Consider the current references: The subject is covered by at least two leading newspapers in India. He is a recognized author for Penguin Random House. I beg to ask if this still insufficient? Could you please elaborate what more is required? Spiritual guidance is very, very important in this age of "Huge access to information but lack of wisdom". There are also many other spiritual leaders who are not so notable, yet they are on Wikipedia. Just like the recent "WP:SCAM" there are also concerns of bias (Refer WP:BIAS) by Wikipedia editors. Thank you -Polytope4D (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Polytope4d: did you come here asking for advice, or to accuse me of bias? I just want to clarify that first, because my reply is going to depend on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I apologize if you misunderstood. It is for asking for advice. This is not accusing you. There are other articles, where some editors connected to them are biased. I am speaking about such editors. -Polytope4D (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Polytope4d: okay, no worries. I think we are all biased, whether we realise it or not, and I'm no different in that. Just wanted to check if that was the point you wanted me to address. :)
The Draft:Gauranga Das draft cites four sources. One is an author profile from his publisher, which is clearly not independent. The other three are him sharing his philosophy, and at least one is explicitly based on an interview. (There is also a bit of a reliability issue with the TOI article, although that wasn't a major factor in my decline.) All four are therefore primary sources. To establish notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of him as a person, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of him.
I did also consider notability per WP:AUTHOR, but it is quite a high bar to pass, and there wasn't anything obvious in the draft suggesting that was likely.
As for your "beginning stage" point, no, you don't need to include all possible information or sources to get an article published, but you do need enough sources to establish notability, which is a core requirement for publication in the first place, and you also need enough content to make it clear why the subject is included in a global encyclopaedia. As long as those points are covered, the rest of the content and sources can be added later (and on a personal note, from a reviewer's point of view, that would even be often preferable).
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes we are all biased to some extent, hence Wikipedia will never be completely neutral. What would be proper secondary sources as per you, (or you could give me the appropriate link)?
-Polytope4D (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Polytope4d: in principle, most secondary sources (books, newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, etc.) are okay, at the publication level, unless there's a reason to consider them less than reliable (and WP:RSP may help to determine that). Where it gets trickier is when the publication is notionally secondary, but the article or other piece is primary, ie. it is based on an interview with or commentary by the subject, or is based on press releases and similar publicity materials, or is paid for or 'sponsored', or is a blog or pure opinion piece, etc. Especially music and book publishers and agents are very good at generating media attention for their clients which consist of one or more of the aforementioned things, but which are nevertheless packaged to look totally innocent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. I was surprised to see the WP:RSP page. Different sources have different levels of reliability.- Polytope4D (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red July 2024

Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • A foreign language biography does not guarantee notability for English Wikipedia.
    Check the guidelines before you start.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question

Hello, thank you for your review. I am confused on why Draft:Noah Hacham does not meet the academic notability criteria. From what I read n.5 in the criteria because he is a senior lecturer in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem which is a major institituion of higher education and research, especially in his field which is Jewish history. He is also the head of the Mandell institute for Jewish studies in the Hebrew University. Also I think he meets criteria n.1 because his work was cited 823 including 258 times since 2019. I don't know if it matters but there is a Wikipedia article about him in Hebrew. Thank you for your time and help. Enhazaam (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Enhazaam,
The NACADEMIC #5 refers to the highest echelon of professorship, ie. a named chair (in countries where those are used), 'distinguished professor' or similar titles, etc., not just anyone with the rank of professor and full academic tenure, and certainly not anyone below the professor rank. AFAIK the academic ranks in Israel are pretty much the same as here in the UK, and here 'senior lecturer' is below the rank of professor, let alone distinguished professor.
Being head of an institute does not satisfy NACADEMIC #6, which is reserved for heads of entire universities or similar top-level academic institutions.
I didn't see the draft saying anything about his citations, but now that you bring that up, I notice that the external link to Google Scholar shows his h-index as 11, which seems pretty low to me, even for a relatively 'niche' field such as Jewish history.
I'm not saying categorically that he isn't notable, only (as I said already in my comment) there's nothing that jumps at me as an obvious evidence of notability.
And no, it doesn't matter that there exists an article on him in some other language version of Wikipedia. Each language version is an entirely separate project with their own rules and requirements. The English-language one has probably the highest notability criteria, therefore it's not at all uncommon that an article is accepted into one of the other versions, but not accepted here.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Hami Mahmoudi

Greetings and Regards Dear friend, please tell me the draft:Hami Mahmoudi What was wrong with that you rejected, your friends said with 3 sources that it is possible to publish a short article, I had used more than 3 reliable primary and secondary sources in this article, that is the main reason for your rejection. what was ناتاشام (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ناتاشام: it's not just the number of sources, it's also their quality that matters. Sources need to be secondary (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books), reliable, independent, and they must provide significant coverage of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Shossam33000 on Help:Getting started (16:39, 3 July 2024)

help me please 😭 --Shossam33000 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shossam33000: okay... could you be more specific, though; what help do you need? This seems to be your first edit, so I don't know what it is you're trying to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Leadec

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

a few months ago, you reviewed Draft:Leadec and declined it with the comment that it may well be notable, but that the sources were not sufficient to prove this. Since then, I have added numerous reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability and quality standards. Given that almost three months have passed since the last submission, could you kindly take a moment to re-evaluate the article in its current form? Thank you in advance! ChrisNinetySix (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed your note for drafts regarding AfC and re-reviews, so my request is probably superfluous.. sorry! ChrisNinetySix (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of the article Oberstufen-Kolleg Bielefeld

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

the references in my article that i used are the exact same as in the german version of the article. Premiumsiriachasauce (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Premiumsiriachasauce: okay... not sure how that's relevant, but thanks for letting me know anyway.
Are you saying that you've translated this draft from the German-language Wikipedia? (I know you didn't exactly say that, but the implication seems to be there.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry this is not what i wanted to say. My Point is, why are these references enough for german Wikipedia and Not for englisch Wikipedia? Is it because the references are in German? Premiumsiriachasauce (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Premiumsiriachasauce: ah, okay, got it.
Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own requirements and policies. What is acceptable in one version may not be in another. The English-language version has the strictest requirements in what comes to notability, that I'm aware of at least, so it's not at all uncommon that something gets accepted into, say, the German-language version but not accepted here.
The sources don't have to be in English, German ones are absolutely fine (assuming they otherwise are up to the required standards in terms of reliability etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted my changes; Requesting breif

Hello sir @DoubleGrazing, I am not a paid advocate and I recently started my journalism. I started finding the incorrect profile on Wikipedia articles and i found few profiles/ articles in my region who are social workers. One of the profiles are Chamala Kiran Kumar Reddy and now he is the Indian politician, Member of Parliament Lok Sabha so the content is not up to date and misleading. I am contributing my efforts and knowledge to update the content with accuracy also I enclosed the sources from Election Commission of India and Lok Sabha, Government of India. but I don't know why you treating it as a promotional article and i have 15+ references about him and his profile addressed by Journalists, media and government. Also referring to Balram Naik, and Suresh Shetkar who are also colleagues to current profile candidate and those profiles are equal to our content and references, which are approved and live. I sincerely request you to advice us on how to get the approvals or please guide on what to change or what to add in references. I have faith in you and Wikipedia and i believe that you will help us to continue contributing my knowledge, time and efforts to the betterment of society. Thanks in advance. Prasadkhhanna (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Prasadkhhanna: you have to write in a completely neutral and non-promotional manner, avoiding peacock expressions and weasel words and any sort of praise or hyperbole. Your job is not to 'sell' the subject, only to describe it, in boringly factual terms.
In your latest edit, which I reverted, you said things like "His journey from modest beginnings to a notable political role reflects his commitment and hard work." This is totally inappropriate – it might be okay for his website or campaign brochure etc., but not for an encyclopaedia. Similarly, "He represents the cultural heritage of Telangana. His appreciation for the state's diversity and cultural pluralism is evident in his inclusive leadership style, which resonates with the people of Hyderabad." Absolutely unacceptable. (These are just two examples, the list goes on.)
Also, everything you say must be supported by citations to reliable published sources. Neither of the above excerpts were referenced, so who is saying all that – you? Him? We only want to hear what independent and reliable secondary sources have said. In fact, most of what you added to the article was unreferenced.
These are the reasons why I posted the paid-editing query on your talk page, because you seem to be saying a lot of things that have no obvious source, and you're insisting on praising this person. These are typical 'red flags' for an editor who has a close interest in the subject, whether paid or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @DoubleGrazing, Hope you are doing good. As you mentioned I went through the Wikipedia policies and changed the content in neutral way of describing. Respecting your reply, I have not edited again instead I updated in talk page Talk:Chamala Kiran Kumar Reddy. Can you please review and move it to main space? Thanks. Prasadkhhanna (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

List of sunken ships

Following the declining of a complete list of sunken ships. I have created a draft to split the complete list into drafts by decade, the first one is in the 1910s.

Draft:List of sunken ships in the 1910s VesselFan (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VesselFan (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I fear that I am asking for your opinion

It is with our mutual friend and on my talk page. Feel free to say that you do not have the time, interest or inclination to do what I have suggested. I hope I am not wasting your time. If you do offer an answer, please be crystal clear. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Question from Al Begamut (19:44, 6 July 2024)

I am going to make an edit which is related to a discussion on the article's talk page; I would like to link to that discussion in my edit summary. How to make a link like that and how to get the link for that specific topic on the talk page? --Al Begamut (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Al Begamut: you can 'wikilink' in edit summaries in the usual way, with square brackets.
And you can link to a specific section of a page by using the # anchor. So for example, to link to the 'Personal life missing' section of the talk page of Taylor Swift, the link would be [[Talk:Taylor_Swift#Personal_life_missing]]. For more info on section linking, see MOS:SECLINK
HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Rejection for Drishika Chandra Page

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for taking the time to review the 'Drishika Chander' page. I've noticed that my recent references have been rejected, despite sourcing them from reputable locations similar to those cited on this page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Manasanamaha.

Could you please clarify what might be going wrong here?

Thanks for your help! Don poky (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Don poky: your drive only cites one source, which only makes the briefest of passing mentions of Chander. It also lists, without citing, a few sources, most of which are completely useless. This means that the draft fails the core requirements of notability and verifiability, as well as violating the referencing policy on articles on living people (WP:BLP).
Moreover, the draft is inherently promotional, which, combined with the lack of any notability, is why I have requested that it be speedily deleted. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for response. I will try to fix it.
Thanks! Don poky (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Request on 18:10:09, 10 July 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Natethegreat4226


So, first off - thank you for taking the time to review this article, as I know reviewers are busy all the time and have a never-ending list of articles to review.

Alright, here is why I am contacting you. These kinds of articles are constantly declined when put through the articles for creation process, yet if you look at every FBS and even FCS football team page for this year - you will see the same exact format as this article. Why then does this one get declined? Are the FBS articles not being deleted because of their importance? I just want an answer since I am seeing somewhat of a double standard here. I plenty understand that an article needs an abundance of references to back it up, however if we are going to allow sports pages like the ones you can see on 2024 NCAA Division I FBS football season, then what is the standard?

Thank you in advance for your time in dealing with this issue.

natethegreat4226 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Natethegreat4226,
When reviewing a draft, we mainly look at whether the draft meets our core requirements of notability and verifiability, is written in a neutral and non-promotional manner, and doesn't have any copyright violations.
For notability, in the case of sports teams/clubs, the general notability guideline WP:GNG applies, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.
This draft cites three sources, all of which just provide schedules, meaning they're neither secondary, nor provide significant coverage. That's all I need to know, to determine that notability has not been established, and therefore I must decline.
I realise there may be articles out there among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia which are on similar subjects, and which also have issues with notability etc., but we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, we assess them with reference to the applicable guidelines and policies.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your reply! natethegreat4226 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive_38&oldid=1237755135"