This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
S0091 thank you so much for your help with abbreviated names, kin,
and article reviewss! Have a terrific 2024 and beyond. "See" you next year. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Bensaujana it is currently not submitted. If you wish to submit it, click the blue Resubmit button at the bottom of the last decline message on the draft. Right now, the estimated wait time is over three weeks but could be shorter or longer as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. S0091 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I see that you reviewed my article of Rose Harlean as declined at this time. To answer your comment, the article was deleted on French wikipedia because I used a VPN while creating the article which resulted in my IP address being blocked to edit. It happened a few days ago and an appeal is underway.
In terms of published sources, Têtu is the biggest LGBTQ+ magazine in France and the sourced open letter has been an important stepping stone in the representation of trans people on French screen. Rose Harlean is one of the few openly trans actresses in France and although mainly independent, her career is already a decade long. Les Inrockuptibles, in which she gave an interview, is also a famous magazine in France. Her filmography can be checked on IMDb but also on French equivalents such as Représentrans and Allociné.
I also categorized the page Rose Harlean under Trans Actresses because like many others in this list, Harlean's career is blooming but facing difficulties in appearing in mainsteam websites and articles. The last thing I want to point out before asking you to reconsider is that she did wrote the open letter in the magazine Têtu but the article was published independently and Harlean was sought to write on the subject as one of the rare French openly trans actress of her time. EspoirsCinéma (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @EspoirsCinéma What she has written or said are primary sources and not independent regardless of the publication so cannot be used to establish notability and several of the sources make no mention of her so not useful (and should not be used because they cannot verify anything about her). She does not meet the notability critieria for actresses because that requires multiple major roles in multiple notable films and it appears most of her roles are small parts or in non-notable films/works.
In order to meet notability, multiple reliable secondary sources that have independently written in-depth about her are needed (not interviews, her writings, press releases, etc.). Before I declined it, I did check Google News and ProQuest which has several major French newspapers and also the reason I checked the French Wikipedia (i.e. maybe an article about her existed there that had better sources) but came up empty because as you say, mainstream press is not covering her. That also indicates an article about her may not be possible at this time, see WP:TOOSOON. Two of the deletes on the French Wikipedia also mentioned lack of appropriate sources but be aware each language is their own project so has their own policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be on another and vice versa, with the English Wikipedia generally being more strict. S0091 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
No need to rush anything, but I think you'd win, what with 80k edits and a clean block log. I don't see anyone else having brought this up on your talk page. What do you think? Mach61 (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I created an article about a polish startup that is currently doing an innovative project and you flagged it as something to be deleted because you that of it as a promotion. I was only using information from the internet and I wasn’t trying to promote anything. I wanted to create an article as part of my uni assignment and I was working on it for a couple hours and it got deleted the second I submitted the draft. I still don’t have any idea why 46302Julia (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the author of the draft Draft:Rex Heuermann, can I still impove it and, In my opinion, he's deserving to have an own article since he is in the news right now, and he's the alleged killer of Gilgo beach killings and he's found guilty of 4th degree murder on the first trial Jlvshistory (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jlvshistory yes, you can continue to work on it and you can use material/sources already in the Gilgo Beach serial killings just be sure to add attribution in your edit summary (i.e.something like "copied from Gilgo Beach serial killings"). You are also welcome to start a discussion on the Gilgo Beach serial killings talk page to see if you can get consensus for a stand-alone article about him. Though I think it will be unlikely unless he is convicted. There was debate about even naming him per WP:BLPCRIME. S0091 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I dont understand why 18 citations coming from sources like the LA Times, YouTube interviews, Track and Field News, and major college Athletic website profiles are not considered to be reliable sources. And how can 18 citations be too few to meet the number requirement?
2603:8000:713F:79F:A567:86EB:690C:834A (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Draft: Art Venegas
I have reviewed the tutorial you recommended and cant see what is wrong with my sources. Can you be more specific? I am using such things as LA Times, YouTube video interviews, major college Athletic Dept sections of their websites OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Victor Schmidt, yes I see there are several discussions. @OLYMPICHAMMER I added a citation for you as an example, see footnote 1 which was #10 in your list. It is now cited next to the content it is supporting, once in the first paragraph then again in the last paragraph, and now listed in the References section. Note, the footnote numbers are automatically assigned in the order in which they are first used and the References section is populated automatically when citations are added in the body on the text. S0091 (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Victor, I have cleaned up the Draft: Art Venegas article using the input of you and four other editors. Can you review, I want to submit it again OLYMPICHAMMER (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Jamal Nusseibeh
Dear S0091. You just declined my draft for Jamal Nusseibeh, citing puffery. Your comments reveal a lack of information or research on the subject. For example, you say that my comment that his father, Sari Nusseibeh, is considered Palestine's leading intellectual is puffery, is belied by Wikipedia itself. Sari Nusseibeh's own Wikipedia page says that, and additionally, that "In 2008, in an open online poll, Nusseibeh was voted the 24th most influential intellectual in the world on the list of Top 100 Public Intellectuals by Prospect Magazine (UK) and Foreign Policy (United States)." That's hardly puffery. I kindly request that you reconsider the submission. Thank you. Wikiusers2024 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Wikiusers2024 I am not the editor who declined your draft due to puffery. I was the first editor who declined the draft due to sourcing and notability issues. You updated and resubmitted it then @Utopes declined it citing puffery. I have pinged them here so they are aware of your concerns. S0091 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the notif. This may be true, @Wikiusers2024: which is why I'll instead link MOS:PUFFERY which gives a textbook example of it (and happens to also use a "top 100 most influential" list). Just because someone is on a list of 100 influential people, doesn't mean it's acceptable to tout their name as "the most prominent intellectual" without this context. The article states that Nusseibeh is "a source of innovative ideas", which is opinionated no matter how I look at it. And I'm not convinced that calling someone a "thought leader" in the first sentence is neutral; "scholar" could be better? Those were the main issues I had though. Feel free to resubmit the draft if you'd like another opinion by a different reviewer. Utopes(talk / cont)15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh! My bad. Thank you for referring it over. And thank you for your comments, which I addressed by adding a bunch of secondary references. Wikiusers2024 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh! My bad. Thank you for referring it over. And thank you for your comments, which I addressed by adding a bunch of secondary references. Wikiusers2024 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
First, you mention that none of the Forbes [Forbes.com] articles are reliable so they should not be used. I understand and agree with what you are saying about sponsored content and Forbes.
But please note that Forbes Magazine publishes its content on Forbes.com and this content is also prepared, edited and fact checked by staffers at Forbes Magazine. In essence, they Forbes and Forbes.com are one and the same. The exception, of course, relates to sponsored/promotional content being noted above.
I cite references 14,15,16,17,18 and 20. Please note that Sergei Klebnikov works for Forbes and this means BOTH Forbes and Forbes Magazine. He is not a contributor. I am more than happy to delete references 25-28 which are contributed pieces by Mark Tatge, which also happens to be me.
Reference. No. 30 is a reference citing the methodology for the list. It was published by both Forbes and Forbes.com. It offers factual information about the veracity of the list. Are you saying this is not helpful or warranted to source?
As far as the books being sourced through Amazon, I can easily change the citations for the books and merely cite the title, author, publisher and date of publication and ISBN no. as has been done by other authors citing their volumes or quoting from books they have written. Please see: Daniel Lyons, American Writer and former Forbes editor. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Daniel_Lyons
Next, i have a question about another issue: I have third-party independent sources, but the actual article is behind a paywall. It cannot be accessed without a subscription. How should this be treated? I attempted to overcome this by offering a PDF of the article hosted on Dropbox.
This seems to be a recurring problem since many, many news sites that were open to the public are no closed and have erected paywalls. This is certainly the case with citations No. 4, and No. 10. Please let me know what you advise. I will await your response and sage guidance. Best wishes. Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Johnnydeadline as for Forbes, any article that identifies Klebnikov as a contributor is not reliable nor are those that are sponsored content, identified with declarations like "in partnership with", "presented by" or "in conjunction with", which is every single Forbes article you cite. You can cite paywalled sources (see WP:PUBLISHED and WP:PAYWALL) but just be sure they are about him, not what he or those affiliated with him say. Otherwise they are useless. S0091 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Klebnikov works for Forbes. He is a staff writer who helps prepare the magazine's lists. Shook Research did the research for the lists. Klebnikov is NOT a contributor in the same sense of people who contribute to Forbes.com and are paid on a per view and per article basis. This is different. Klebnikov is on salary at the magazine. You can view his bio here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/?sh=6d2f6c223a70Bold The lists Forbes publishes involve considerable research. These appear both in the magazine and on the website. The lists can be viewed here: https://www.forbes.com/lists/list-directory/#5a726f9db274. The lists are not paid for by the people on the list and they are not edited or paid for by advertisers. The advisors have no say in how they are ranked or not ranked. The lists are NOT sponsored content. Rather, the lists are empirical and have a defined methodology. Citing these lists is no different than a reporter who writes a news story for Forbes and quotes outside sources, or empirical studies that are prepared by an outside source in business or government. Many Forbes stories are generated this way. I know, because I used to be a Senior Editor at Forbes 1999-2007. In reference to the lists ranking advisors, the outside research is prepared by SHOOK Research. The methodology developed to prepare the lists is disclosed on the site and in the magazine. For the record, the lists are published on both Forbes.com and in Forbes magazine, an edited, fact checked, vetted source. They are not sponsored content. There is a distinction and this should be allowed. Thanks, MT Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I should note that the word "contributor" does not always mean sponsorship or advertising. Many non-staff writers who are journalists are deemed "contributors" since they are freelancers. I agree with you in regard to Forbes.com since contributors issue needs to be examined carefully. There are people out there who represent themselves as one thing, but are in fact another. It should be noted that freelancers are paid and often do good work that is empirical. The work is fact-based, verifiable and accurate. Contract freelancers would rather be called reporter, but publications don't do this since they don't want to pay benefits. The individuals are simply low-paid labor with no benefits. It has nothing to do with the quality or substance of their work. Simply excluding all contributors shows a lack of understanding of the structure of news gathering, and quite frankly, is unfair to freelancers and the valuable functions they perform. Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Request on 23:28:16, 26 January 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by NyanKatGrrrl
Reliable sources: Should I cite the spreadsheet on the IOSYS website directly, or do I need to cite the individual pages for each release?
Notability guidelines for musicians: Not sure what the issue is here, I am only moving the discography section of main article to a new article because of size. The notability guidelines say nothing about notability specifically for discographies.
NyanKatGrrrl (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @NyanKatGrrrl IOSYS is a primary source and not independent so not helpful for notability and should only be used sparingly. What is needed is in-depth coverage, such critical reviews from reputable critics/publications, about their work. See WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for some guidance. The issue is more so IOSYS (the band) does not demonstrate notability so is vulnerable to deletion so if I were you I would focus much more on the main article than the discography. I took at look at the Japanese Wikipedia article thinking it would provide better sources but it is worse shape then the one here, with primary sources and conflating the production company and the band with no sources demonstrating notability. S0091 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh and you are right, the are no guidelines specific to discography notability, just like there are no guidelines specific to many topics, for example food, because they are covered a under a broader guideline. In this case is it a mix of WP:NMUSIC and WP:NLIST. S0091 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
regarding the decline of a draft page
dear editor,
you have declined my draft page about an electronic music festival in turkey. according to you, my citation didn't qualify as 'reliable' - while I am able to add new citations from famous newspapers, I wouldn't prefer doing that, for a good reason; I don't think the organizators of this music festival will be happy about that. Why? It is because they position their festival as an alternative rather than mainstream festival. If you will be unconvinced by my following argument, only then I will send email and ask their permission to add some 'popular, mainstream' news or magazine articles.
This is extremely useful list for electronic music addicts like me; however, not complete list! I would like to add more festivals that I have attended.
I don't really need to add more - but there are many pages without a single reliable article. And this is quite normal; most of these festivals are attended by underground electronic music fans
isn't it interesting that wikipedia give permission to make a such great and helpful list but then accept some of festival pages and decline some others. Hoplopkop (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hoplopkop What the organizers want matters not because Wikipedia is based on what reliable source say about about a topic (good, bad, indifferent) and they do not own or have any control over content (see WP:OWN) so if better sources are available you should use them. Being useful is not an valid argument for an article (see WP:USEFUL). As for existing articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability guidelines have changed over time so what may have been acceptable even a year ago, may not be acceptable today and articles are judged on their own merit, not against other articles. Hundreds of existing articles are deleted everyday for not meeting current policies and guidelines and it may very well be the articles you listed should be deleted. S0091 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that the articles I had listed should not be deleted because they are useful. While what is useful is subjective - these pages are about music festivals that host thousands of people across the world. Wikipedia became the first port of call for anyone researching any subject for good reasons: first, it motivated people to contribute their knowledge - the wisdom of crowds - second, it opened the way that knowledge moves freely - above all wikipedia succeeded in part because it guaranteed the most correct information. i understand your concern on reliability yet please don't tend to ignore the fact that most of the electronic music festivals emphasize ‘alternative’ - their pages shouldn’t be judged on the merit of ‘scientific’ or ‘popular’ or whether they have ever appeared on the most heavily used newspapers or journals - Hoplopkop (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hoplopkop In order for a topic to warrant an article it must meet the notability criteria. Period. Again, things like usefulness, popularity, etc. do not matter. All that matters is multiple reliable independent secondary sources have written about in-depth about the topic. YouTubers with millions of views/subscribers do not have articles because they do not meet the criteria. Likewise, some small businesses have met it. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you need to prove via sources the topic meets notability. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and the time of volunteer editors. And no, Wikipedia does not guarantee correct information and is not a reliable source (see the disclaimer at the bottom every single page and WP:CIRC). Never, ever solely rely on what a Wikipedia article states. S0091 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Figure skating results
Actually, the WP:BURDEN is on you and all other editors who want to add any of the US team as gold, not the note authors, because only the IOC can officially award medals, which they have not done so here. This is one instance where WP:PRIMARY sources trump secondary, because it concerns a matter where only the official opinion matters. In any case, secondary sources are unanimous that the medals have not officially been given, and that both Russia and Canada are going to appeal, so this is not a mere formality. Jasper Deng(talk)22:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng it was not my intent to change the medal. Another editor had changed it then Ілля Криворучко changed it back and added the note. I reverted their edit because the note is not sourced but did not notice the previous history regarding the medal. I have no issue with using a primary source but currently there is no source (at least that saw). Did I miss the source? If not, can you add it or leave it here and I will go back and add it? I did do a Google search before I reverted but didn't find one. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You clearly didn't search hard enough because a cursory news.google.com search of Kamila Valieva reveals a lot of them, such as [1]: "The IOC is responsible for reallocating medals and its executive board is next scheduled to meet in March." I would recommend not editing this topic area because it's fairly complex and I don't think you fully understand the situation.--Jasper Deng(talk)18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I reverted her for reasons other than you reverted her. Also, Kamila Valieva is the exact subject of this whole situation–again underscoring why I do not believe you understand this situation enough to be making edits about it.--Jasper Deng(talk)18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CycloneYoristalk!20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Request on 18:58:20, 21 February 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by 12DionneJ
I am a Toyota Master Tech. All of the information provided is straight from Toyota. What other sources are needed when Toyota is the one that builds these transmissions for their vehicles? It is being shared here for the Toyota community because not all of the information is available to the public elsewhere.
Hi @12DionneJ The issue is less verification, meaning a source verifies the content. The main issue is meeting the notability requirements, which requires multiple secondary sources that meet the reliability criteria and have written in-depth about the topic. Anything published by Toyota is a primary source so not helpful for notability. Like I said, I looked at several other articles and honestly, most of them likely should be deleted. If I had to guess, they were likely created before Wikipedia had notability guidelines or when the guidelines were not as strict and enforced as they today. S0091 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, that's an asinine statement. It is notable because it listing a history of Toyota Transmissions, their gear ratios and their usage. These have been compiled over the years to aid the community. These other articles have been edited even within the last couple years without issue or cause for deletion. Deleting them would serve more harm than good. 12DionneJ (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
In addition, Wikipedia serves as an online Encyclopedia. This information is just that, encyclopedic. Gathered from sources that the general public isn't always able to directly access. 12DionneJ (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@12DionneJ I get where you are coming from but being WP:USEFUL (read that) is not enough. Likewise, simply stating something is notable is not enough. You have to prove it by meeting the notability criteria. Are there any trade publications, something like a Transmissions Today (making that up), that provide reviews or some other in-depth coverage about various transmissions? If so, that would help meet the criteria. S0091 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I also believe these pages fall under the section "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists" cited in WP:USEFUL. 12DionneJ (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, usefulness if not a valid argument for an article so things like page views are routinely dismissed during deletion discussions. Reviewers are assessing if an article would likely survive a deletion discussion, which generally means it meets the notability criteria and why I say most of the other articles would likely be deleted if they were nominated for deletion. For lists, see the notability guidelines for lists. If there are sources that meet the notability criteria and have written in-depth about Toyota A transmissions as group that might be a route. S0091 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This is not an article about Toyota A transmissions. No such source exists because this is the only place this information has been compiled for the community. It draws from multiple Toyota Source documents across decades. 12DionneJ (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I have another page that I'm trying to submit for review but after I click on Publish at the bottom it doesn't prompt me to submit it for review. Any ideas? 12DionneJ (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@12DionneJ check now but I am going to warn you, none of your drafts will be accepted in their current form. I'm not say this to be mean but just being honest. Blogs, forums, dealer sites, etc. do not meet the sourcing criteria. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
It is all encyclopedic knowledge that is building upon the database that has been created within wikipedia over the past 2 decades. 12DionneJ (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@12DionneJ Its not an exhaustive list of things that fall under WP:NOT but note at the top of the section it links it Notability. That's the requirement for inclusion. I can tell I am not going to convince you so going back and forth is a waste of time. S0091 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This falls under the "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists" section of Wikipedia:Notability. 12DionneJ (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@12DionneJ To be clear, the most recent declines are by other reviewers, not me and you are misunderstanding that statement in the notability guidelines. It says content within lists, not the list itself. It further states For additional information about list articles, see Notability of listsand List selection criteria (bolding mine). It does not state there is no notability guidelines for list; in fact it points to the notability guideline. I have tried to explain this you to before but you are not getting it so like I said above, it's a waste of time. You are welcome to request assistance at the the AfC Help desk but any further posts about this topic on my talk page will be ignored. S0091 (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi S0091, I don't agree with your removal of the {{Close paraphrasing}} tag. The sentence . Gibbons is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association, the International Statistical Institute, and the Royal Statistical Society, and a member of the National Academy of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. is a exact copy of the website and doesn't even have the source added as reference behind it. As such, it's not really close paraphrasing, but a copyright violation. Nobody (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article, this is my first time writing one on Wikipedia (Draft:World Runners Association)
Indeed, the WRA website is a primary source. Nevertheless, the existence and activity of this association is widely recognized and reported in the press - often specialized, running around the world is a microcosm. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the BBC wrote an article talking about the association, already 3 years ago, as well as other sites specializing in running and running history, such as https://ultrarunninghistory.com/around-the-world-1/
I could also cite a lot of sources and news articles that talk about the association and its members and their world records, I just don't know how to fit them into the article coherently :
I will continue to work on the content of the page with the members of the association.
I would like to draw your attention to the status of the association, which does not call for any donations of any form whatsoever. Its existence is 100% supported by its members, and does not require any external funding. It is therefore not a question of advertising in this article, but of making it appear to the public that there is an association which can help runners who would be tempted to complete a world tour, by walking or running. . The sporting aspect is the sole objective of this association, which is also not linked to any government or any other organization. This page is important for high-level athletes, but also for the community of runners, it is an association which has the power to approve world records in this category.
If you ever have any advice to give me on the best way to display press articles, as well as improve the sourcing of this page, I'm interested.
Thank you for taking the time to read me, and I am open to any advice you could give me.
Hi @Xanareld how the organization is funded makes no difference from a notability perspective and being a non-profit does not exclude it from being promotional. In fact, drafts (and articles) about non-profits are often the most promotional because often they are written by an advocate. See also WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause (a snippy title but worth a read). While the BBC link did not work for me, I am assuming it is this article, which is in-depth about the Club so that counts as one in-depth source. My suggestion is starting with that source and summarize what it says about the Association and Club (it is a travel club serving a niche sport, rules for membership, as of 2020 has six members, etc.). Do not use WRA's website at all if possible.
Looking at other sources above, two are blogs, azumio and ultrarunninghistory, so are not reliable sources with azumio.com being written by Tom Denniss so also a primary source. The UOL article is based on the BBC article so counts as the same source so not worth using. The others are all brief mentions about WRA (a sentence or two) so not helpful for notability but I think those are helpful for establishing WRA is recognized as the sport's governing body. The CSM article can also be used to support it started in 2014. In order to meet notability, you need at least one more reliable source that has written in-depth about WRA (not interviews or based on what those affiliated say). I did check ProQuest but found either the same sources or sources that were brief mentions that didn't offer anything not already in the others. S0091 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi S009, thank you for your complete response, I am checking with the association and I am trying to update the article based on your recommendations. Xanareld (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Script Studio (software) Article declined
Hello. Thank you S0091 for reviewing the article but I am totally at a loss as to why you declined its inclusion despite the reasons you cited. And for the purposes of clarification, I am an avid screenwriter and am in no way connected to the company that publishes this particular software.
You stated it reads more like an advertisement than an article in an encyclopaedia and I strongly disagree. It is written from a neutral point of view and many other software applications in the screenwriting arena have similar article pages Fade In (software), Final Draft (software), WriterDuet, for example, and many of these do in fact read more like an advertisement that my proposed article.
You say the cited online references are not "in-depth" yet they are and are far more than passing mentions. All of them.
You say that they are not "reliable" or "independent" and "secondary" yet they are. PC Mag is a reliable independent online ezine that reviews 1000s of software applications. The interview with the author of the software is also independent and the interviewer's website is all about writing and she talks to many writers about all aspects of writing.
You assume and suggest that "Screenplay Readers" who reviewed the software some years ago were "paid" to do so. How do you know if they were paid or not? I have researched many of the articles on their site and blog and do not personally get the impression that they were paid.
If you are suggesting that all reviews of products cited in references in Wikipedia articles are "paid" then that is a huge assumption to make. If you propose I contact Screenplay Readers to ask them then I am willing to do so and forward their response to you so please do let me know and I will proceed in that manner.
The only item of your comments with regard to the article being declined that I can see your point of view is the "press release" referring to the Xojo award. So would replacing that link with this https://blog.xojo.com/2019/05/01/2019-xojo-design-award-winners/ be more agreeable to Wikipedia's guidelines? If so, I will make the change.
Thank you again for taking the time to contribute and review.
Denise
Hi @Deniseaddy: As stated in the decline, the sources cited are either what those affiliated say and/or not reliable and using such sources leads to promotional content even if not intended. You mention PC Mag, which is a reliable source, but it is listed in the External links section which are not considered. If you want it to be considered, summarize what it says (pros, cons etc.) and cite it. As for Screen Reader's, I am not assuming they are paid; they have price menu on their site. Commercial sites offering products and/or services are not reliable sources because they have a financial interest so are not independent and most blogs are not reliable sources. Interviews or what those those affiliated say are primary sources and not independent, even if published by a third-party (see WP:Interviews). Film Freeway is not a reliable source because it is user-generated (see this discussion). You can use the press release to support they won an award but not much else and it is not useful for notability because it is a primary source. In order for a source to be useful for notability it needs to meet all four of criteria outlined in the decline: secondary, reliable, independent and in-depth.
As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability guidelines have changed over time so what was acceptable even a year or so ago may not be acceptable today and new drafts/articles are not assessed against existing articles. It could be those articles should be deleted. S0091 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Page mover granted
Hello, S0091. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Hi @WhiteReaperPM see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We do not review drafts in the context of other articles. Each is reviewed on their own merit and just because an article exists doesn't mean it should. You are welcome to resubmit it to get another opinion. I suggest at least expanding it though. S0091 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I saw that you recently made an edit to the page about Maryam Nawaz Sharif. I am reaching out to request a review of the complete article as the information in the article is not objective at all and seems to have been written with an intention to malign her. She is a prominent political figure in Pakistan and should be represented in a more objective way on this platform. Thanks Icetlives (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Icetlives yes, I acted on an edit request by an IP but I am not familiar with Nawaz so I looked at the sources cited and agreed with the IP. I see you have made an edit request as well but you do not state what changes you believe should be made. You need to be very specific but concise and back up your request with sources so I suggest updating it. No one is going to action on a broad statement like "article is not objective and seems to be written to malign Maryam Nawaz Sharif" and you cannot request it needs to be "revised by an authentic contributor", whatever that even means. If there are several issues, start with most major one and work from there. S0091 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi S0091, noticed that you reviewed this and accepted. I've speedy deleted the mainspace redirect so it's ready to move. Just wanted to bring this up in case you forgot. Thanks! TLAtlak08:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I've seen you've declined my draft. Let me explain: there are no sources because all the info is in the external links. I can add links, however, please note that the same sites are usually considered - and quoted as such - reliable sources in many other articles about songs.
Now, going straight to the point:
the point:
Discogs is usually regarded as unreliable if used to determine genres, but here I used it for general release information, and for that you will find a Discogs reference in like any article.
Oldtimemusic is considered reliable - other articles use it as a source. Anyhow, I added it for the "song meaning" section (if really necessary ok, I can convert that into a reference).
About What-song, only used that as a reference for the films where the song appears, so it makes no sense to convert it into a reference (better as a catch-all external link).
I can add some links to the albums on Amazon. ~~ 82.84.225.97 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi IP, see WP:DISCOGS where the community has determined it is unreliable though fine to use in the External links section. Like Discogs, What Song is user-generated, Old Time Music is a blog so also not reliable (maintained by a graphic designer, not a recognized expert) nor is Amazon. Above that, you need to show the song meets the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Aethon Books Wiki Draft
Hello! Thanks for commenting on my draft!
You mentioned that the Forbes article used as my source does not count as a good source as it is from a contributor, but does Robert Salkowitz really not count as a subject matter expert on comics? That's the requirement as stated on the Forbes Contributor note. He is literally considered notable enough as a journalist in the field of comics to be on Wikipedia and was nominated for an Eisner on comics journalism. He wrote the book on comics and teaches it at the University of Washington...
There are also multiple hollywood reporter articles - an approved Perennial source. I went to add one from The Beat, an approved source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References, but said approved source uses the FORBES article as IT'S source. So my approved source uses an unapproved source for its source? I also have sources directly from multiple awards pages (that are also on wikipedia). How many sources does a draft need to count as notable??
As for press releases. Would you be able to advice me on a better way to indicate a partnership between two major companies? For example, Webtoon has announced a partnership with them, but the only sources are the press release, or articles ABOUT the press release, because that's literally how news works. The only other source I could find is this: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/newsbrief/index.html?record=4467. Publishers Weekly is very commonly used as a source on other wikis. I could go and find the books in question on webtoon and link each of them separately? JollyJupiterAuthor (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @JollyJupiterAuthor Sources serve two purposes: verifiability and notability. Looking at the Forbes article again, I agree with your assessment so it is a reliable source, though still considered self-published. I will add a comment to the draft retracting that statement. The Forbes article, press releases and routine announcements can be used to satisfy verification but do not establish notability. The Hollywood Reporter articles are routine announcements or press releases. Business Wire are press releases as the CBC article. The Beat article makes no mention of Aethon. In order for a source to contribute to notability, it needs to meet all four of the criteria outlined in the declined and in-depth is this instance means about Aethon Books, the publishing company. The general rule is three. (Side note - you are using the Forbes article to support Bruno’s Roach won awards but the article makes no mention of it so I think you accidentally used the wrong source). S0091 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Tamer Balcı
On 27 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tamer Balcı, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Olympic hammer throwerTamer Balcı was later cast in a movie as Tarzan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tamer Balcı. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tamer Balcı), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Styyx great to see an article that was saved from AfD make it to the main page and very kind of you to include me in the DYK nom though I didn't do much. S0091 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Need some help for my next edit.
I was editing this article, "Grimlock" and noticed that the article is too long and contains many plots of the movies, series, & comics in which this fictional character has appeared. Moreover, there is a section called "Toys" that talks about the models of the character that were released (most of them do not have a source) which I think is totally unnecessary for this character as these topics contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.
My first edit on this article was reverted because the edit was "Deviating from the style." I still do not know which part of the edit was deviating from the style, as all I did was remove a few pieces of content and not add any other extra information.
Hi @Tomlovesfar the editor who reverted you stated "Unexplained content removal" as their reasoning but you did state your reasoning so I think that is a bad revert (see View History next to Edit). However, do not make disparaging comments about editors (i.e. "whoever wrote all these haven't touched grass for years."). The editor who left you a note about style referred to different articles. As for your changes to Grimlock, I suggest posting a note on the article's talk page asking for input because I am not familiar with the topic so not sure what is reasonable or isn't, though I agree a lot it seems like WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR. You could also try to make the changes again and see if it sticks or reverted. If reverted, start a discussion then inviting whoever reverted to join. S0091 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 24
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 24th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 24 December 2021. Uh-huh, we're finally covering the good ones among the rest! Aren't you excited? Remember to include a link in double brackets to the script's .js page when you install the script, so that we can see who uses the script in WhatLinksHere! The ScriptInstaller gadget automatically does this. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Making user scripts load faster by SD0001 is this month's featured script, which caches userscripts every day to eliminate the overhead caused by force-downloading the newest version of scripts every time you open a Wikipedia page. Despite being released in April 2021, our best script scouters have failed to locate it due to its omission from the US of L. For security reasons, the script only supports loading JavaScript pages.
Newly maintained scripts
After earthly attempts at improving the original have failed...
Ahecht has created a fork of SiBr4/TemplateSearch, which adds the "TP:" shortcut for "Template:" in the search box, and updated it to be compatible with Vector 2022.
AquilaFasciata/goToTopFast is a much faster fork of the classic goToTop script that also adds compatibility for Minerva and Vector 2022.
Without caching. Each script takes 400–500ms. A particularly large script takes 1.11 s! Internet download speed is 50 Mbps.With caching enabled. Each script takes just 1-2 ms to load.
Improve a script
Unfortunately, this section has remained nearly identical. Help us out here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
Dragoniez/SuppressEnterInForm stops you from accidentally submitting anything due to pressing enter while in the smaller box, and works on almost anything... except the InputBox element itself, used in subscription lists and the Signpost Crossword! Oh, the humanity!
Doǵu/Adiutor(pictured) provides a nice, integrated interface to do some twinkley tasks such as copyvio detection, CSD tagging, and viewing the most recent diff.
Eejit43 has quite the aesthetically pleasing scripts, all made in TypeScript.
/afcrc-helper is a replacement for the unmaintained Enterprisey/AFCRHS and processes Redirects for Creation and Categories for Creation requests.
/ajax-undo stops the "undo" button from taking you to another page while providing a text box to provide a reason for the revert.
/redirect-helper(pictured) adds a much better interface for editing and redirects, including categorization, for which valid categories are dictated by /redirect-helper.json.
/rmtr-helper helps process technical requested moves without being able to actually move them.
Guycn2/UserInfoPopup(pictured) adds a flyout after the watchlist star on userspace pages that displays the common information you might use about a user.
Jeeputer/editCounter, under userspace, adds a portlet link to count your edits by namespace, put them in a table, and put that table in a hardcoded subpage, all in the background.
Hilst/Scripts/sectionLinks converts all section links to use the § sign, which are known to be preferred over the ugly # by 99% of the devils I've met.
PrimeHunter/Category source.js adds portlet links to tell you where a category for an article comes from and supports those from template transclusions.
Sophivorus's MiniEdit adds some nice, li'l buttons next to paragraphs to edit their wikitext with a minimal interface.
Edit-listings
Dragoniez/ToollinkTweaks adds more and customizable links next to users in page history, logs, watchlist, recent changes, etc.
Firefly/more-block-info optimizes the display of rangeblocks in contribution pages. Doesn't work outside the English locale of any wiki, unfortunately.
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader makes paging links (e.g. older 50, 500, newest) load without refreshing and makes you realize how slow your internet actually is.
Appearance-ricing
Ahecht/RedirectID adds the redirect target to all redirects. For all the WP:NAVPOPS haters. (Do these exist?)
Dragoniez/MarkBLockedGlobal: Remember the "strike blocked usernames" gadget? Now you can use a red, dotted line to highlight rangeblocks and global locks!
Jonesey/common(pictured) has some styles to overhaul your Vector 2022 experience. It reduces padding everywhere, and makes the top bar animation faster.
Aaron Liu/V22 is a fork that narrows the sidebars instead of upheaving them, reverts the January 2024 dropdown changes, and restores the old page-link color for links that don't go outside the current wiki.
Nardog: SmartDiff is a spiritual successor to Enterprisey/fancy-diffs. It makes the page title part of links in diffs clickable, along with template and parser function calls. Unnamed parameters can be configured per template to also be linked. All links are styled based on the normal CSS classes of rendered links.
For the paranoid: Rublov/anonymize replaces your username at the top of the screen with the generic "User page" text. Remember, it is your duty to persuade everyone that editing is an honor.
/AjaxBlock provides a dialog box for easy input of reasons while blocking users.
/Selective Rollback(pictured) provides a dialog box to customize rollback edit summaries and does them without reloading the page. Seriously, why doesn't MediaWiki already do this?
/flickrsearch adds a portlet link to search for uploadable flickr images about the subject.
/randomincategory adds a portlet link when on Category pages to go to a random page in the current category.
Vghfr/EasyTemplates adds a portlet link to automatically insert some of the most common inline {{fix}} templates.
Yes, we're just doing 'em as we go now. Thanks for reading through this looong issue, if you did! I'm sure this'll send a record for the longest issue ev-ah. You may need to wait even longer for the last issue, as our reserve of old-y and goodie scripts have ran out... We encourage you to try and do some of the requests or improvement tasks. See you in Summer, hopefully!
@DBrown SPS it's fine to submit it but I just didn't want anyone to think they needed to wait for AfC to accept it. I have come across this situation before and editors thought once a draft is submitted it had to go through the AfC process. Of course, if folks are more comfortable with going through AfC, that's fine too. Thanks for the note and your work! :) S0091 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi S0091, I don't agree with your denial of the draft article on Rebecca Blankenship on the grounds of "Notability." Ms. Blankenship is the first openly transgender person to ever hold elected office in the state of Kentucky, and she is noted elsewhere on Wikipedia for this feat. I have made edits to the tone of the article and added additional sources, including references from national publications like The Advocate as well as more local news sources. I have also linked her pages to other prominent figures in Kentucky and added clarifications for what her electoral positions were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodman.emilye (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of the media coverage isn't local to her location. A lot of it is statewide, but I can try to find more sources from beyond Kentucky. emmogood (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Goodman.emilye I checked ProQuest which has various sources, some being pay-walled like the New York Times but found only a handful or so that were all brief statements by her so not helpful for notability. I also checked Politico which does cover local politics (ProQuest has it but wanted to double check) but nothing there. Even so, you are welcome to resubmit it when ready and another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@ThreeBootsInABucket I can't recall which AfD I came across first but one lead me to other. I was certain I could find sources for Lozupone given his long career like I did for List, especially from Newspapers.com but it did not have anything, not even show ads (zero hits). Internet Archive also has some old issues of jazz/music publications but nothing there either other than mentions. ProQuest has NYT, other NY newspapers, a couple or so jazz publications among several other types publications but the only hits there were photo credits and unfortunately WP:WikiProject Jazz is not active. It's one of those cool person who has and is doing some cool stuff (metal jazz!, videos/photos, archiving, etc.) but I just don't see notability under Wikipedia's definition. Also, Lozupone it is still an active musician so it could be there's not enough now but maybe in the future and anything deleted can be restored if more sources do become available down the road (assuming worst case scenario) Do check around for other wikis too. It's certainly possible one dedicated to jazz exists. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
As I said I'm not the only contributor just seems a shame to let it get deleted, even yourself you said he is doing some new stuff, but since no reliable source says it in a way we can use only casual mentions of innovation we can't say it. Thank you for trying for both. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I thought you actually thought you were bludgeoning since you were the first to do the thing of commenting on a vote you disagree with, but mostly yes you were helpful and listened sometimes, sorry I took it weird because that new voter voted delete on a bunch of articles that day and didn’t vote any keeps, and even said something like my vote doesn’t count because I made the article, though I think most of it is not made by me. It was very stressful when I examined the sources and then someone ignores what I said and mis identifies some sources. I do need to leave you are right, that is why I left the site before. Thank you. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@ThreeBootsInABucket yes, I was including myself in the bludgeoning but also the overall discussion and wanted to open up "space" for others the participate. And no need to apologize. You have a point-of-view, which is fine but once you state it there's no need to continue to repeat it. As for the nominator, it is not uncommon for the same editor to nominate multiple AfDs. Some are WP:NPP reviewers so part of the responsibilities of reviewing new articles, some are going through some type category or stumble on one article that leads them others so there's really nothing odd or untoward about it. The editor who nom'd List and Lozupone has also nom'd several others. I certainly did not mean that you needed to step back from the project as whole, just the AfD. Either way, wish you the best. S0091 (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes I see. One user just made a lot of changes to the article and I do not believe I understand them, but I do not want to edit war about it. Do you understand it? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
They did not remove it, just trimmed it but really these are questions you should be asking them. I can't read minds...yet. :) S0091 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi {ping:Buszmail} if you want it reviewed then submit it and a reviewer will take look but off the bat, musixmatch and Discogs are not reliable sources so you will replace those, if possible with better sources. You can try AllMusic and I also suggest Google Books for additional sources in general. S0091 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Saishna96 please do not request reviews from multiple reviewers as doing so is considered disruptive, even if not intentional. You have submitted it so a reviewer will take a look at some point. Your draft is no more important than the other 2k pending review. S0091 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and sorry for what i did, I'm not intensionally done and will not repeat this again.
@Saishna96 No worries. If there is a reviewer that seems open to review requests, you are welcome to ask them but don't ask multiple reviewers. The vast majority of reviewers do not take such requests because it's not fair to all the others. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ann Alwis, I am not Dave so I think you have the incorrect user and meant to leave this message on Dave-okanagan's talk page rather than mine. S0091 (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ann Alwis no worries! You may have clicked the "Leave me a message" on the Welcome message I left him some time ago but that's to contact me, not him. It's not the first time that's happened. S0091 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@S0091 oh okay, apologies for the inconvenience caused. Btw, can you advise me on the below scenario?
Hi there, is there anything we can do to improve the XHPBJR-FM draft? We have 2 sources from the IFT Federal Telecomm institute from Mexico were we confirm the existence of this radio station, also the webpage from Stereo Miled list the existence of this page. MEXDOOMER1 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Both of us, as I need help to get this page online. Almost all of the radio stations in Mexico only have one or 2 valid sources of existence. Being the IFT and news source as validations of the existence of each radio station MEXDOOMER1 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@MEXDOOMER1 accounts cannot be shared so if there are two you, you each need your own account. Again, existence is not enough. You need to prove the stations are notable under Wikipedia's definition which means multiple reliable sources have written about the stations, not based on government documents or what those affiliated with the station(s) say. If no such sources exist, an article is not possible. S0091 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have been trying to make Wikipedia page for Salwa Jarrah, a well known Arabic language broadcaster and author. However, my original account was blocked due to sock puppetry. If I were to make another account to work on the Salwa Jarrah page, which was recently declined, would this still be considered a 'sock'? If so, what are my options, as I have no functioning accounts? Thank you for claritying.
My question is, if one were to make a new account after another Wikipedia account were blocked, would that count as a "sock account"? 199.111.212.95 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Do not create another account. That is considered block evasion. You also should not be editing from this IP either. If you wish to be unblocked, make an appeal on your original account. Lynch44 (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can you please explain your decline rationale at Draft:T.J. Knabb? The subject meets WP:NPOL as a state senator and while the draft is not great, it is certainly acceptable. Additionally, there appears to plenty of coverage of Knapp on newspapers.com ([2] 1,500 hits across 48 of the 50 states); the creator does not have access to newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library until they reach 500 edits, so they are limited to what little appears on Google. Curbon7 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Curbon7, well it started with the sources. The first one appears to be self-published book as Drummond is a marketing/printing company and the second one is about Knabb Turpentine. That article contains pretty much the same information in the draft about T. J. Knapp so it was a bit poor sources and not great content. I should have selected merge rather than exists for the reason, though. Either way, if you disagree I have no issue either reversing my decline or resubmitting it on behalf of the creator. S0091 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The Central
Hi. I can't edit the the talk page of the Central and I have no idea why. This has happened a couple of times before and I can't figure it out. BUT! Beside the point. I agree -- I think the editor got discouraged and left.
I didn't find any more sources on the club, but I did find a million people who want to talk about the nights they spent there. I'm convinced there are more sources but I haven't been able to find them. I don't think the draft would survive an AfD. Maybe a merge with the The Viper Room? (The draft now has the saddest short description I've ever seen: venue that existed.) JSFarman (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@JSFarman Cool. I am going move the draft to mainspace and turn it into a redirect so the history is maintained and for a search term. One day maybe sources will become available. I can only imagine all the "remember that night at The Central when..." stories. :) S0091 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Dreamboy3143 Shazam is not listed as one the accepted charts and appears to be a streaming service. The linked article is about show that covers missing people and the linked video is not about Aslan (or music) so I am not sure what that is suppose to be showing. Usually a musician meets the notability guidelines, at least in part, with in-depth critical reviews of their work by reputable independent publications/critics. S0091 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Canright Rejection
Actually, I thought the Rejection was a bit harsh, although I 100% agree the person is not yet article-worthy. I have no intention of doing any more edits. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@David notMD yeah, I can see that and obviously my intent was to decline. The other issue was the infobox was missing the closing brackets so when they submitted both times, it looked like there was only an infobox with no content. I fixed it but it had also blacklisted sites so it took me a few minutes to work through all the issues In the middle of all that the other editor rejected. Anyway, it's clear they are not notable and sometimes it's better to rip the band-aid off so to speak. I see you have reached to the creator so hopefully that took some sting out of it. S0091 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool I just so happened to be going through some my old AfC accepts/declines the other week and came across Draft:Prakash Neupane and wondered if I had gotten it wrong so started digging. The more I dug the more it all did not make sense. Had it not been for that, I probably would not have taken much notice of your AN filing. You've done some great extensive work investigating all this. Sorry for all the stress it has caused you and the threats you have suffered. If you quit, I understand but hope you don't. Did you notice the COI notices Divine left for various users before they flamed out? Interesting. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed S, I have noted but not tried to make sense of anything that's happened; taking a break from all that for a while, but I'll likely be around and look into it again after I've sufficiently refreshed. Most days, there are no other regular editors from Nepal at all, so I always worry about who's gonna be interested when I have to bring stuff up. It's a relief to see that case resolved. I was in shock more than anything through all that, to be honest. Thank you for yesterday and for reaching out to me today. It was nice to read what you and Liz and Josh wrote; a few people reached out privately as well. It was a nice change of pace after the last few days. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you recently moved this article back to draft space due to the person accepting it in AfC being CU blocked. What should I do with this draft now? Do I need to resubmit it to AfC? Relatedly, I'm also curious if you can answer two questions. First, is it common practice for WP:DRAFTIFY to be used when a user is blocked? Secondly, can you give some thoughts as to why this is the only draft that was affected? Thanks, Mokadoshi (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Never mind, another user has re-approved the article, so this doesn't matter anymore. I'm still not sure why this article was targeted specifically, and you didn't leave any notification on my Talk page, but I understand you were busy investigating this user and perhaps you were planning on getting to it later. If you have concerns about the article, please let me know because I'm happy to address any feedback. Thanks, Mokadoshi (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Mokadoshi apologies for not leaving a note. I don't draftify often and forgot to use the script which does leave the creator a message along with adding the draft template so it can be submitted. To answer your other questions, it is standard practice for editors to review the actions those who were here to undermine Wikipedia's policies and processes, as was this case, and undo them. As to why I draftified yours is because your request for a review is still on I'm tla's talk page and to be honest, was suspicious given the circumstances. They were not a prolific reviewer so a seemingly odd pick. Therefore, I thought a check by another reviewer was warranted which has occurred. S0091 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@S0091 I understand. Now that you say it, I can see why my request on their Talk page is suspicious. It didn't occur to me when I posted above asking about what had happened. I asked them for help because it seemed like they were looking for articles to review. Of course now in hindsight I understand why they were looking to pad their stats and that's unfortunate. Unfortunately it sounds like you run into this all the time, but this is the first time I've interacted with someone rule breaking like this and it's been really eye opening for me. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Request on 21:22:11, 8 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by AliceMaiAnh
Hello,
Thank you for reviewing the draft of Valiant TMS. After careful examination of our draft and research on other companies whose Wikipedia entry was published, we have a few questions regarding your comment.
1. "Press releases and anything emanating from the company are primary sources and blogs are generally not reliable sources".
We found multiple press releases and blogs that were listed as references in a few companies' Wikipedia pages, please see the list below. If these sources were accepted for these companies, why did we get declined for using the same type of references?
- ATS Automation Tooling Systems: Reference #13 is a press release ("ATS To Acquire Biomedical Research & Life Sciences Water Purification Equipment Provider Avidity Science". www.newswire.ca. Retrieved 2023-09-22.)
- ATS Automation Tooling Systems: Reference #2 is a press release ("ATS Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal 2020 Results".)
- ATS Automation Tooling Systems: Reference #5 is a blog which is no longer accessible ("ATS founder Klaus Woerner passes away | ATS Automation". www.atsautomation.com. Retrieved 2018-11-09.)
- Nuro: Reference #21 is a press release ("Uber and Nuro Announce 10-Year Partnership for Autonomous Food Deliveries Starting in California and Texas". PR Newswire. San Francisco. PRNewswire. September 8, 2022. Retrieved September 9, 2022.)
- Starship Technologies: Reference #3 is the company's own article. ("About Us". Starship Technologies. 2016. Retrieved 30 August 2016.)
- Starship Technologies: Reference #24 is a blog/press release published on the company's website ("World record: Starship hits 2 million autonomous deliveries". Starship. Retrieved 29 December 2021.)
- Starship Technologies: Reference #27 is a blog (Zura, Reid (3 April 2023). "Starship Technologies Sets Another World Record with 10 Million Kilometers Driven". Starship Technologies. Retrieved 14 June 2023.)
- Starship Technologies: Reference #43 is a blog/press release published on the company's website ("Starship Technologies Appoints New CEO". Starship. 1 June 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021.)
2. "Trade publications are at best weak sources because they generally exists to promote an industry."
We do not agree with this statement as trade publications can be in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject, meaning they meet all requirements of a Wikipedia article. Additionally, if a company is private with limited exposure to public media sources, like ours, it is hard to have third-party references that are considered reliable by Wikipedia. We found these trade publications in the reference list of some companies with a published Wikipedia page.
- Nuro: References #1, #2, and #28 are from The Verge, an American technology news website. Also, references #10, #12, #16, #19, #20, and #23 are from TechCrunch, an online newspaper focusing on tech startups.
- Starship Technologies: Reference #1 is from TechCrunch, and #33 is from The Verge.
3. "Other sources are routine announcements/coverage so considered trivial."
Could you please point out which sources we listed were routine announcements? The sources we included in our references covered important events and milestones in our company, such as an acquisition (References #6, #11, #12, #13) or an opening of a new location (#9 and #10). These are hardly trivial.
4. "Much of the content is unsourced and this is written in a promotional manner."
Again, as a private company, we do not have a lot of coverage by public newspapers/magazines. We included information from our website in our previous draft but got declined, so we had to remove those sources. We would like to know why other companies were able to list their own blogs and "About Us" page as references, but we couldn't.
We also do not agree that our draft was written in a promotional manner, as we did not use words or terms that were overly promotional or sound like an advertisement. If you could point out which parts in our draft have this issue, we would be happy to edit it.
@AliceMaiAnh it does not matter if you, or whoever "we" is, do not agree. Please thoroughly and carefully read WP:NCORP which is the first link in the decline notice and addresses most of your arguments so I will not repeat them here. Please also note sources serve two purposes: verifiability and notability. Primary sources such as press releases, a company's website, etc. can be used within limits for verifiability but do nothing to establish notability which is the bar you must meet for an article to be accepted. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. S0091 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I have thoroughly reviewed all the links you sent and still don't understand why the same type of sources were accepted in other articles and not ours. The "other stuff exists" argument you sent only addresses the deletion discussion, not sources in an existing article. It is confusing what is "within limits" but still establishes notability. I can argue that all the primary sources added in our draft are within limits and we still have secondary, independent sources to cover other topics - but my opinion doesn't matter. That's why I requested your assistance.
You also didn't specify why our draft was written in a promotional manner. I have reviewed the WP Neutral point of view article and I don't think we violated anything listed there. Now I understand I can edit my draft and resubmit it for another reviewer, but I would like to know what mistakes I am making here so my next version can be better. It would be helpful if you could point out which parts in our draft were promotional. Thanks. AliceMaiAnh (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The existence of other articles and sources they use has no bearing on whether another article should exist so using that line of argument is not helpful. The reasons are because policies and guidelines have changed overtime so an article written years ago may not meet today's standards, not all articles have gone through a review process as the review processes did not exist until a few years ago and even so, some articles get by that shouldn't. Also, there's currently 6.7 million Wikipedia articles and only few thousand active editors so the vast majority of updates to existing articles are not monitored so rid yourself of the notion of things being "accepted". Existence does not mean acceptance. If those other articles you mention are sourced mostly or entirely to primary sources or otherwise poor sources then they likely should be deleted.
In order for this draft to be accepted, it needs to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP which as this time the draft does not. Looking at the first five or so sources, the first one is a blog so not reliable, the second and third are are press releases so primary and not independent, the forth and fifth are mostly based on what those affiliated with company say so primary/not independent and the portions that are secondary/independent are not in-depth (a couple or so sentences). Boeing is not an independent source and those are not in-depth. The others are company's website, trade publications (see WP:TRADES in WP:NCORP) or commercial sites offering products and/or services so not reliable. Basing an article on such sources inherently violates WP:NPOV/WP:NOTPROMO not to mention much of the article is unsourced. Statements like "Valiant TMS is a leading provider of...", "The company has decades of experience in..." are promotional. See also WP:SOLUTIONS. It is written like a market brochure rather than an encyclopedia article which should be based on what secondaryreliable independent sources say about the company based on their own independent research, analysis, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
What? It's perfectly clear. It's an experiential learning tool used in the development of cultural competence, obviously.
I jest, of course. It's comprehensible, if you've been unfortunate enough to have learned edu-corpo-speak (I'm one of these unfortunates, alas), but that doesn't mean it's particularly meaningful. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
"We proclaim the dignity of the human person and the richness of living sexual integrity, inviting our culture to become fully alive." Uh, wow, ok -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear. Liz appears to disagree with me that it's just a pile of buzzwords stapled together and declined my G11, so it will be stuck in the AfC queue for some time, it seems. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Now G7'd which means it will likely show back up as a fresh draft, decline/G11 free (I know ABF...but seen it happen tons of times). S0091 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I will look forward to being confused by it again! (I agree, it will show back up at AfC. Or in the mainspace.) JSFarman (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
All of the sources are either press releases, based on what the company says and/or routine coverage which fails WP:SIRS. If sources that meet NCORP exist, please add them and expand the content. Right now it is just a list of activities rather than an encyclopedia article based on what reliable secondary independent sources say. S0091 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 62
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
AFC instructions regarding translation and copying
I understand the reason for your revert at the AFC reviewer instructions—normally I would have done the same thing for a change to instructions and requested consensus first—but this is not subject to consensus (well, the wording is, of course; feel free to change it or discuss it) but the Wikimedia licensing requirements we all agree to with every save trump everything else including policy and consensus. I don't object to changing the wording around as long as the basic requirement is explained. The reason for the new paragraph is that submissions are being accepted by AFC reviewers that are violations of our Terms of Use, and that simply cannot continue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I was in the process of developing a Wikipedia page of a popular Bulgarian music artist, one may have concerns about the reliability of the cited sources. The newspapers mentioned, Maritsa, in particular, have a long history in Bulgarian journalism and are widely used by people for obtaining information. They are often considered reputable sources of information; Homuraexee (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Homuraexee that appears to be a advert for a show and was not written by a journalist (no by-line). In addition, FALL is only mentioned so is not in-depth coverage. The draft has now been declined by two other reviewers as there is no indication FALLWME meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:NMUSIC. You might try Wikialpha instead. S0091 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hello, S0091. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Colored Citizens Protective Leagues, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, S0091. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tabitha Holton, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
You recently undid three of my edits, and all were improper. I invite constructive changes that build on these edits, and I ask you in the future to please discuss these topics on my talk page before wholesale removing them.
Your problem with my Pennsylvania State University Libraries edit was stated variously as promotion, NPOV and poorly sourced. None of these is true. This was well sourced by reliable media outlets. It was a very active topic of discussion at the time and is very relevant to the topic. I have no connection to the topic, so I have nothing to promote. I added additional sourcing and an rebuttal to the Freeh report, however.
Your problem with my Jessie Inchauspé edit is similarly false. Again, I have nothing to promote. As you can see in the edits, however, the author of the vast majority of that page has disclosed a conflict of interest. It was previously a mess of NPOV with almost no refutation of Inchauspé's claims, despite the fact that she is not a health professional and there have been many criticisms of her by scientific and health professionals. I simply added a small sampling of those fact-based, scientific arguments by relevant experts, with extensive sourcing.
Lastly, your problem with my Matthew S. Petersen edit is the most poorly supported. The page previously erroneously attributed opinion columns in two news outlets to the staff of those outlets. The authors of those columns are not on those staffs and in fact had current and former positions at the time that were extremely relevant to Petersen's confirmation and the opinions they were expressing, creating conflicts of interest. All I added were proper context to the quoted statements. Distance6212 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Distance6212 As for Pennsylvania State University Libraries, a blog, which are not fact-checked, written by someone on behalf of the family is a primary source and is a minority view, unless there are secondary reliable sources that support Thornburgh's analysis. Also, the ESPN source did not fully support the content so I have made amendments. Another editor has also now reverted your changes to Jessie Inchauspé also citing NPOV. See also WP:DAILYMAIL, which is a deprecated source so should not be used. I also made a slight amendment to Matthew S. Petersen. S0091 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Cup article
Just letting you know that I made some edits to the draft and resubmitted, making it longer, with more citations, to distinguish it from the comparable info on Pettit's main biographical page. I think the current revisions are enough to distinguish it, but if more are needed, I can add them. Thanks for the feedback and being kind about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspinty1 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, you seem to have reverted a merge in this diff [4]. As far as I can tell, this merge gained consensus three years ago, and none of the editors in the merge discussion are blocked for "UPE/sock", as your username suggests. Neither is the editor who performed the merge. Could you please explain this revert? Toadspike[Talk]19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Toadspike as my edit summary indicates, I am going through some UPE/sock edits. If you happen to come across any others where I missed something, please feel free to revert me. Actually, you can do that anytime. If I have a concern, I'll let you know but most likely I will trust your reasoning and let it be. S0091 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi S0091, you put the template like resume in the article I created about Anabel Gonzalez. I changed the article to remove the template, but you put it back. This is an executive with an extensive career in economic development. What part of the article looks like this? Positions held? It is a simple overview of her career so that those who need to know what she has done can access that information. What other changes do you think he should make to the article? Thanks. Martinhusni (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Martinhusni it is still written like a resume, with things like years of experience, the Positions held section, things like "where she implemented solutions to boost private initiative, foster dynamic economies, and enable governments to expand market opportunities" is entirely promotional and much of it is still unsourced. Part, if not most of this, is because the sources used are non-independentprimary sources filled with promotional fluff. Primary sources should only be used sparingly and only for very basic facts. The article should largely summarize what reliable independent secondary sources have written about her, if any exist. If such sources do not exist, then she does not meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello S0091, hope you having a good day? I see nothing wrong with Draft:DJ Dimple Nipple you declined, I mean reliable sources are there and if you take your time to read the references it will be fine to me and also she has also won an award which is one criteria of notable person https://w.wiki/Evv
Hi @75DD almost all the sources are interviews or what she says about herself which are primary and not independent and as per the guideline, the award must be well-known and significant which means like a Nobel Prize or a country's highest honor. You have resubmitted it so another reviewer will take look. S0091 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Good morning. I just posted some questions in "Talk:Roy Knapp (musician)". Can you look those up and help me with them? Also, I'd like to place a reference in the "Retirement" section from a Chicago Tribune article about Roy placed after "1960" in the first sentence. I don't know how to include the entire 1978 Tribune article, entitled "Percussion's dean steps to a lively beat", since it appears on two different pages. Can you place the reference from newspapers.com for me?
Finally, now that the Roy Knapp entry has been published, what can we do to get my John P. Noonan entry published? I'm still confused by the first citation (with "Conroy, Greg" in red). It's a duplicate entry of citation #13 and should be deleted. Otherwise, I'm ready to hit the "submit" button.
Please advise, and thanks for your help.
/s/ Jeff Neuhauser 6/18/24 Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff Neuhauser go ahead and add the citation with your clipping and I will add the additional page afterward. As for the Conroy, Greg source, it was way up on the page between the first and second review. Not sure how it got there but I removed it. If you are ready, click the resubmit button or you can bypass AfC and move to mainspace where it will be reviewed by New page patrol. See Help:How to move a page for instructions, select (Article). If you choose to move it, you will need to clean up the left-over template that will on the top (delete them). S0091 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've tried twice to take your advice, trying to move the article so as to "... bypass AfC and move to mainspace where it will be reviewed by New page patrol" to no avail. I've never done this before so your help will be appreciated. Again, my apologies. Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hmm...not sure how to help. Maybe the issue is the screenshot at Help:How to move a page already has (Article) selected in the 1st drop down. A draft will be Draft so have to change it to (Article)...Article is 1st in the pick-list so scroll up. This also how you can change the title so if you wanted it be John P. Noonan instead of John Patrick Noonan, you update the second box which has the title. Does that help? S0091 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I successfully changed the title to John P. Noonan! The only questions in my mind that remain are, what do you mean by "forgot ping", and what else can I do to move final publication to a fast track? Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff Neuhauser you did successfully move the draft to a new title! If you want to publish it, you will need to do another Move and this time change the 1st box from Draft to (Article). To do that, after selecting Move, click the down arrow next to the word Draft, which will present a list of options. Scroll up and select (Article), which is the very first then click Move page. As far as the ping, that was an error I made which I was correcting. If you notice in my response I did not ping you (i.e. the "Hmm....not sure" one). Long story short, you can't go back and add a ping to previous comment; it doesn't work so requires a new comment. S0091 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Could you please block or permanently ban User:SS1934. Check his edit log, he's been vandalising FIFA ranking stats of the Bangladesh national football team along with ranking stats of other nations for about two years now. I have reverted it each time and asked him to stop removing sourced info but he wont stop. FNH004 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Recently, you reverted Abeer Gulal and Antarpat (TV series) two articles, but why? Enough attachments are added also they are airing since few weeks back. Because of this behaviour, noone will try to create new articles. You guys simply restore the redirect and nothing tell detailed reason about reverting, atleast you should give chance to new pages for reviews. New page creators will get hope to create more and more new pages, and even if after giving one month span, if the page is not improved upto date then you should revert the page, please consider this reply and do necessary change ASAP. 49.33.251.21 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps stop socking (see WP:LOUTSOCK). Anyway, an admin has now protected the redirects due to persistent sockpuppetry without me even asking so they saw the same as I did own their own. S0091 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Arahi991, you have added a lot of content but only three sources, Crunchbase which is not reliable (see WP:CRUNCHBASE), ShaleXP which is a directory listing so does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and a government document which is a primary source so does not help with establishing notability. Nothing suggests the company can meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and will not be considered. S0091 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, and good day! I see you've declined Draft:Junbo-Ritsugō, please let me know what you'd do to fix it! (Also it is mentioned in a sense on the pages that are on the list of the Junbo-Ritsugō, all the pages on the Junbo-Ritsugō list has "Honorary mother, or honorary empress" which as explained on the list is what Junbo-Ritsugō means! Camillz (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Camillz no problem but I do agree with Brachy. As a reader who does not know anything about the topic, which is in part the article's audience, I find it confusing. There's a title but that title is not used on the any of the listed articles. S0091 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I saw you mention this study on another editor's talk page and went to go look at it. One factor you didn't collate is the number of participants in AFD discussions. There is a bit of a debate right now over whether or not there has been a decline in editor participation in AFD discussions over the past year. Fewer editors participating in discussions often means that it is more difficult to determine consensus and discussions get relisted more frequently which is one element I saw was true on your data page. But could you tally how many different editors participated in a day's deletion discussions in 2019 vs. 2023? It would be useful to know as well if there is a seasonal difference say, the difference between summer and winter. Thanks for considering my query. LizRead!Talk!01:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I've also wondered whether some closers tend to only close discussion as "Delete" vs. other outcomes but you might not have enough data points to analyze that. And it might only be of interest of bureaucratic wonks like me. LizRead!Talk!01:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Liz, first after I put this together I did some more digging around and found User:JPxG/Oracle so there is more comprehensive data available. At some point I am going to pull a couple full years or so together because the high-level summaries do not include the number of !votes but there is detail in sub-pages that contain it by month. It also does not include who the closer was but that would be waay too time consuming to manually look up.
As for the number of participants, the number of !votes is largely representative of the number of participants. There is the occasional comment by a non-!voter but based on my experience looking through AfDs it is occasional so I don't think it would change the numbers much and even it did it would increase both for 2019 and 2023 so would likely wash each other out. The vast majority were straight forward, meaning 4 !votes equals the number of total participants. Based on the analysis, the median is 3 for both 2019 and 2023 and that aligns with the pattern saw going through them. The average was slightly different because large AfD's skews it. For example, I think one of the 2019 AfDs had 38 !voters. One of things I have wondered is if the COVID years were an anomaly and is the reason I chose 2019. Meaning maybe it appears participation is historically down but that's because participation spiked for a couple years which would align with the spike in active editors overall and now it is normalizing.
I hesitated posting the closer's counts and I am uncomfortable posting analysis about closer's behaviors for a couple reasons, though as stated the raw data is available on the linked sub-page. First, four days is really is not enough to be meaningful when you get down to a granular level like 'who' (and may not be enough for the other analysis). For example, the analysis makes it appear Czar was not an active closer in 2023 but that's certainly not the case. The other reason is I do not want it to be weaponized. For example a closer being labeled a 'deletionist'/'inclusionist', bad closer, etc. My assumption is if there are persistent issues with a closer it will show up at DRV or AN/ANI. I am sure that is not your intent but I hope you understand.
Also, I extend my sincere condolences about you mom, Liz. You, your family and loved ones have been in my thoughts for a while now and remain so. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my entry. However I need clarification on why you believe the sources in the article are mostly primary sources, or they are not reliable.
3 of 12 references don't mention him directly but are about the people he was involved with for background/historical info purposes. And of the 9 references that mention him directly 4 is from a secondary source (published work by scholar Ludwig W. Adamec). Also all sources are reliable as the 19th century letters and government documents referenced are digitized from the National Archives of India.
(talk page watcher) Fezza21, first of all, there are multiple problems with the Draft, starting with the fact, as already mentioned in a comment by S0091 that "Large portions are unsourced". This is unacceptable, and regardless how good your sources are, this alone will likely guarantee another decline, if you leave those sections unsourced.
Secondly, to your point about the three sources that don't mention him, please read our WP:Verifiability policy. Those sources are inadmissible because they do not verify the content—as you appear to concede above.
I count a total of two independent, secondary sources: note 1 (Adamec) and note 2 (Trousdale). 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are all to the Adamec Who's Who (and therefore should be consolidated with the use of named referenced) and counts as one, independent, secondary source. Notes 3, 5, 8, and 9 (Petition) should also all be consolidated, and they collectively count as one independent source, however it is a primary, hand-written, original document. I am unable to view note 12, but it appears to be a primary source.
Hi @Fezza21 if it is the same sources, I don't think it meets notability but you are welcome to resubmit it and get another opinion. S0091 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I think I did the necessary changes citing sources and removing external links. My sources are major international art magazines,major museum mages and international exhibitions pages. Are these considered reliable sources? If not what other sources do you propose for a contemporary Greek artist? Since Wikipedia does not list many contemporary Greek artists it would be helpful for me to know more and add more artists in the future. About the work section do you find the citations long? Would you prefer a shorter mention without putting quotes like "writer Stephanie Bailey" or "in an interview the artist has stated" etc? As for example in Wikipedia page for FYTA.
Hello @S0091!, there seems to have been a misunderstanding regarding my Draft about the Honda K Engine that has been reviewed, All of my info is sourced from the Wikipage of the Honda K Engine itself, I simply Re-formated the charts, and wanted to ask if that styling was fit for Wikipedia. MotoMottor (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I understand that pinging in AfD is seen as canvassing. However, since @OwenX| suggested me that it’s permissible, I am reaching out to you and a few others. If you prefer that I don’t ping you in the future, please let me know, as it would be counterproductive to ping someone who then says they can’t comment because they were pinged. Please advice! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Saqib I think it would be different if you pinged a group of editors but when you only ping one or two editors it's problematic and does give the appearance of canvassing as noted by voorts. I also understand there's only a limited number of editors who have participated in AfDs in the topic area which makes it tough. I have never pinged a specific editor to an AfD but have left notices on at WikiProjects so you might try that as well. I see now a couple more editors have !voted so hopefully consensus will form. S0091 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
There's only WikiProject Pakistan that is relevant, but it's pretty inactive. Next time, I'll make sure to ping you and a few others together instead of just you. Hope that works for you! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello S0091, thank you for taking the time to review my page draft on Renewvia Energy Corporation. From my reading of your notes, it looks like you took issue with some of the sources I used. Would you be willing to specify which sources you found unacceptable?
For context, I based my draft page off of Husk Power Systems' page, which seems to include a couple sources from the company itself as well as interviews with executives. In my draft of Renewvia's page, I excluded all sources from Renewvia. Some of the sources I referenced did include interviews, and I made sure to avoid taking information directly from the interview portions of those articles. Rupumped (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Rupumped first, we do not base inclusion by comparing to existing articles because there are thousands that should not exist and criteria has changed over time so something written years ago may not meet today's standards. As for the draft, there are a few issues with Global Atlanta. One is they have a limited local audience (see WP:AUD) and the other is they not independent because they offer various partnerships and services. One of the cited articles is sponsored by a organization who had an event in which the CEO of Renewvia was a speaker so that one is certainly not independent. Other sources are press releases so authored by Renewvia as are other sources or the source is Renewvia which are all primary and also not independent. While they may be used for very basic facts, they do not help with notability. The Guardian Nigeria article has no by-line with a named author, is a promotional fluff piece and likely paid for as they are known to do. There's not a source in the draft that meet the WP:NCORP criteria. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
A couple of months ago you rejected a draft for Tropical Storm Bret (2023). Since then, the article has been expanded greatly, and many other users from the Help Desk and one of the other reviewers of the article said a new review could be done. I was wondering if that was something that you could do. It doesn't seem possible to resubmit it without performing edits that I'm unable to do.
I do not think the storm is any more noteable now than it was when you declined the submission 7 months ago, and nothing substantive has been added to it since that time. Drdpw (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @BD2412 yes, I did remove the NYT piece but forgot to put it in my edit summary. The reason I removed it and the content is because NYT was about her first marriage, then IMDB was sourced for the divorce and subsequent marriage so thought it better to remove all of it. Otherwise the article would indicate she is still married to that person. But I understand your point about adding tags first and appreciate the note. S0091 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Reverting the article and adding the multiple issues?
You recently retracted the article Franklin Obeng-Odoom and added multiple issues templates to their page, but why? There are enough attachments added, and they have been airing for a few weeks. You removed the citations of the books and added the same book " Reconstructing Urban Economics" when it's already been and placed the wrong books with reference "Ghana" is not his book it was mistakenly placed in the new line it was the part of the above book. I edited that few times but you reverted that every time. Because of this behavior, no one will attempt to write new articles. You simply restore the redirect without providing a detailed reason for reverting; at the very least, you should offer new pages a chance for reviews. New page producers will be encouraged to create more and more new pages, and if the page has not been improved within a month, you should revert it; please consider this response and make the necessary changes as soon as possible. @S0091 Thank you! Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Shariq Khan 1 adding maintenance templates (aka "tags") is part of the editing and new page review process and the general rule is to wait an hour after a new article is created, not a month and can occur any time during the life of an article (i.e. this is normal). As for my reverts and other edits, I did provide edit summaries so please read them (go to View History). I do not know what you mean by "restore the redirect" and the article was created on 20 July so has it not been a few weeks, only a couple days.
I did remove the citations used for the books a couple times for a couple reasons. First, there is no need to prove the books exist as the bibliographic details are sufficient, which I have now expanded. Second, as stated in part in my edit summary, Thrifty Books is an especially poor source because it is commercial site selling the books so not an independentreliable source and can be viewed as promotional, though I don't think that was the intent. What is needed to show notability are secondary sources that have written about him or his work. For books, reviews by scholarly journals is generally what is used. I found a few so have now cited them next to the book so removed the notability tag. If you want to improve the article, use those sources and summarize what they say in the body and find secondary sources to replace the primary ones if possible. S0091 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Shariq Khan 1 anytime. Also, I see you have not received a Welcome message that contains helpful information and links about editing Wikipedia so will do that now. S0091 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Revised Early life and Education of Franklin Obeng-Odoom
@Naqqash6 you have already removed the material and citation needed tags. If you are taking about the tags at the top of the article, those have not been resolved. Please also see my request for clarification on your talk page about your possible COI. S0091 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@LadyRose2001 You first need to a sentence to the Personal life section with the source. After you do that, you can add it to infobox and no need to add the source there because you have already added it to the article with a source. The infobox should contain things that are already written about and sourced in the body of the article. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thank you again for your help the last few days. I am going to do some research and work to see what other research I can study to provide more References about jobswithdod.com. Introspective.Scholar4 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, welcome to the 25th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 March 2024. We've got a ton of wonderful editors taking back their pitchforks today. Don't worry, for they come in peace, to forcibly fix and extend existing scripts you use with sheer passion. There's so many, them forks have got what's basically their own column now! gift us with some rows before it's too late Aaron Liu (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
An easily configurable script to add a link to the #p-vector-user-menu-overflow portlet with a name, target, and icon. This one should be a relatively easier one. I would do it myself, but I'm too busy rotting away on Celeste (video game).
After the ＲＩＩＪ update, Aaron Liu: Watchlyst Greybar Unsin has a dismiss button that allows you to mark an item as read in one click and cycle to the next Watchlist item.
Lordseriouspig/StatusChangerImproved is just like Enterprisey's script, except you select your status from a dropdown instead of cycling through them with a button. The WMF operates out of car-centric infrastructure anyway. Shame!
Newly maintained scripts
Aaron Liu has created Duplinks from Evad37/duplinks-alt; his fork adds a config variable to automatically highlight duplicate links on the loading of any page where the portlet link would've appeared.
Tired of staring at a bunch of filtering text and waiting for darn filter logs to load? Msz2001/AbuseFilter analyzer can parse abuse filters into a visual syntax tree and evaluate locally on-demand!
Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences finds references with the same link and displays the number of them along with a button to add the {{duplicated citations}} tag under the references section. Being lazy has never been easier!
fastest gun on the net Ponor/really-quick-block really quick add to contribution lists three buttons awesome
...on CIR may be correct. The editor has been given very similar advice in a great many occasions. I feel that they are a net benefit for us under the block imposed since they can do no harm. They are a bit of a time sink if allowed. It may be that we have not found the best way to explain things to them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@Timtrent apologies for the late reply but when I saw this I had no other response than I disagree. I know you are completely fine with disagreements but wanted to lay out why because, for one, that is one should do but as much if not more so because I have a lot of respect for you. I think the ANI discussion has brought the issues to light, which I have witnessed also for a while now. I would !vote supporting a ban but at this point it's just piling on. Consensus is clear so no need to keep hammering the nail as clearly it is not helpful for Greg. As much as folks have tried over the years, to him our statements are as empty/senseless as we think his statements are so no progress can occur. I think that situation is permanent unfortunately. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Feature updates from the Tech News: Stewards can now globally block accounts; Wikimedia site users can now submit account vanishing requests via GlobalVanishRequest; and interface of FlaggedRevs (also known as “Pending Changes”) is improved.
This month’s Wikimedia Research Showcase highlighted the impact machine translation has on both content and readers of Wikipedia and provided interesting insights on how to overcome related challenges. Watch the recording.
The Charts project officially kicked off. The goal of this new initiative is to restore basic data visualization capabilities to the wikis. Check out the project page and follow our progress on Phabricator.
The CampaignEvents extension is now available on Meta-wiki, Arabic Wikipedia, Igbo Wikipedia, and Swahili Wikipedia, and can be requested on other wikis. This extension helps manage and make events more visible. Learn about how to request this extension.
The Campaigns Product & Programs teams have launched a consultation on WikiProjects and other forms of collaboration on the wikis. They want to understand why they work (or don’t work) for some Wikimedia communities, and they want to learn what can be done to improve the experience. Everyone is encouraged to share their feedback.
The Board of Trustees selection pre-onboarding and campaign period is open from July 25 to August 26.
Foundation Trustee Dariusz Jemelniak was appointed to the Governing Board of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, established as part of the EU’s key funding program for research and innovation.
Thank you for removing all of the puffery from Brooke Schofield's article! I had planned to do it myself but it was great to check it to see it had already been done. benǝʇᴉɯ22:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Teesta University
Can you check it Teesta University ? This is private university of Rangpur Bangladesh and already page in Bangla Wikipedia so can u check English one? Mashrafi A (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Mashrafi A, that one does not meet the notability criteria. Some time back the criteria for schools was tightened. For private schools they need meet WP:NCORP which with the current sourcing Teesta does not and given the school is only a year old it might take some time for qualifying sources to exist. I will leave it for another reviewer though. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, S0091. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Newly maintained scripts
.png)
.png)
Improve a script
Requested scripts
New scripts
Hello, S0091. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Colored Citizens Protective Leagues, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
Updated scripts
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
