If I declined your draft at AfC, and you came to ask me to re-review it, please don't (unless I expressly said you could) – I feel it's fairer to the other drafts that yours goes back to the pool... and probably also fairer to your draft that someone else reviews it next. (And if you just came to tell me you've made changes, that's great, but no need to inform me.)
If you still want to leave me a message about a draft or article, I'd appreciate if you could please link to the page in question, so I don't have to go hunting for it. Ta.
@Phantomlord66: I left comments with my review; basically, you need to reference it better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have a personal issue with me. The article is properly sourced and is notable for wikipedia just like the articles regarding other Toyota transmissions that were created 2 decades ago. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ: I've already told you, publish it yourself if you're so sure that it complies with policy. Just beware that if it subsequently gets deleted, that will not only be the end of the road for this copy, it will make it considerably more difficult to recreate the article as the deletion will count against it.
Now, please stay away from my talk page. I already said I don't care for the insults, which you subsequently went on to repeat regardless, or for that matter for your tendentious approach. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing. I've just noticed that the page I created for Jotform Sign was deleted today. Actually it had been drafted about a month ago and I had just provided my reasoning to that editor. Since I didn't receive any response from that person, I proceeded with re-submission without any changes, and it got immediately deleted. But please see the response that I sent to other editor before making your final call. I believe that the topic is notable enough and should be reinstated but I respect to your decision and look forward to do as you say. Best regards,
Hi Tamburello, I can't see how the article meets the notability guidelines at its current state. Feel free to ping me if you think I'm wrong or have improved the article's sourcing. Justiyaya 09:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justinyaya,
First of all, sorry the late response. I see your point as the article doesn't seem to contain too many independent resources. However, I was unable to provide them within the article because that way the article might have seemed more of a press release, which is also not allowed.
Let me try to explain it a little bit more. Jotform Sign is already regarded as a valuable tool by respectable aggregator websites like G2. You can even see Jotform Sign in top 5 in E-signature software category. As you know, G2 is a major review aggregator website and their ratings are taken very seriously by millions of people.
Thus, with all due respect, I'd like to say that this item is notable enough and kindly ask you to reinstate the article. If you have any more questions or would like me to make more additions accordingly, I'd be happy to proceed. Thanks. Tamburello (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamburello: whether or not Jotform Sign is notable (and factors like being a top-5 e-signature tool are absolutely not the way this is determined), promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia, and Draft:Jotform Sign was G11-speedied as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I do not think it's promotional - I don't know how you can promote something if nobody searches for it and cannot find it - but I guess there is nothing I can do about it right now. Tamburello (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Ah, seems I hadn't rated the bank one; I have now. Both came in at 'B or better' according to the rater tool, which I tend to just accept as a matter of course. Hope that's okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
I just saw the rating! I swear they didn't pop up before. I was referring to the content assessment rating i.e. B-class, C-class. Thanks a lot though! Sorry for the inconvenience. Again, thanks a lot for the incredible review speed! Daftation🗩🖉 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speed of light draft review speed. Keep it up! Hopefully more than those two of my drafts will be reviewed by you in the future. Daftation🗩🖉 21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way back in 2022 you helped me with Portugal Space, and now I've created the Draft:Gaganyaan-4. It is waiting to review, and a user commented on what seems to be a literal interpretation of the word "TOO SOON" - and, as an example, the article already has more sources than Shenzhou 18. As I understand, if there are independent sources, doesn't matter if the event will happen more than a year in the future, or articles like Polaris Dawn, Boeing Crewed Flight Test and even the Artemis missions couldn't have possible be accepted. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Erick Soares3: the WP:TOOSOON argument usually is invoked when the subject looks like it might be notable, but the sources to ascertain this simply don't exist (at least not yet). I haven't looked at the sources in this draft, but the editor who made the TOOSOON comment seems to think the sources are actually there, so that may not be a problem. What could still be a problem is the related concern of WP:CRYSTALBALL, which says that we shouldn't speculatively write about things that may or may not happen, because we live in an uncertain world and many things were planned, even "guaranteed to happen", which in the end didn't come to pass. That doesn't mean that no such topic could warrant an article, some are notable despite not having happened, others may indeed be notable precisely because they didn't happen (an example might be the Garden Bridge proposal for London). These considerations aren't always clear-cut, but the better your sources, and the more likely something is to happen, the stronger the arguments are against TOOSOON and CRYSTALBALL, respectively. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! In the case of Gaganyaan-4, for much it might be delayed (like Artemis 2, the Crewed Starliner Flight and Polaris Dawn), but it will happen (there's a clear political will for it and the reveal of the "Gaganyaan Corps" supports it - is not sumething that the media only speculated and the Indian government never said anything about). For much, I think that I've messed up by sending it to Draft: the Indian crewmembers were direct sent to the main space and an army of editors worked continuously to develop their bios. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erick Soares3: regarding your comment "I think that I've messed up by sending it to Draft:", just so we're clear, this has not been declined at AfC, and perhaps it won't; could be that it gets accepted at the first review.
You don't have to go through AfC, you have extended confirmed status so you could just publish this directly yourself, or indeed move it to the main space now, if you wanted.
Either way, since you don't have autopatrolled status, NPP will review whatever you publish, and they apply essentially the same standards as AfC does, so if there is a problem with notability then they would just send it back to drafts anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear reviewer, I will also reply here on your personal wall, I will proceed to improve my draft in progress, I will do my best to improve the article, I therefore ask you to let me know in the coming days and months if the sources and parts of text that I wrote, in the ''external links'', are fine. Already a few days ago I took the liberty of quoting a famous Italian encyclopedia, the Treccani institute, where the surname and name Zurlo is also described in the Venetian dialect, verified and cited with a note in the appropriate paragraph. I also noticed a page in which he appears only with the name of Zurlo, well here there are only a few personalities mentioned, I took the liberty of inserting a quote template with a reference to my draft in progress, how do you think my work is going now ? Thanks in advance for your reply. Kind regards. --GiovAngri (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear reviewer, I have done my best to enrich this draft in preparation with content, I therefore ask you before reviewing it again if any other changes need to be made, which will be indicated to me on my personal noticeboard or needs further consideration, cordially.--GiovAngri (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the redirect for Vastustamaton has been deleted, so can you approve my article about the album please? Thanks! PunchboxNET (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty understanding how to insert a footnote in an article. I read Wikipedia:Footnote4 but it doesn't come across as very helpful, and I tried to implement what it says but it didn't work for me.
I want a little hyperlinked "note 1" that pulls up a text block (e.g., as in the "Allied combatants" infobox section of "Allies of World War II") ... can you point me to a guide or just tell me what to type to most simply get this result?
FYI, the article I intend to edit is "Pod corn" and the note will go after the phrase "mutation at the Tunicate locus".
OK, I found a different example of how to do what I wanted (in An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists), so I think I got it. If you get a chance, any feedback regarding this edit (to "Pod corn") would be appreciated. Thanks! Al Begamut (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Al Begamut: there are a few ways of doing that, each with slightly different use-cases. If I've understood you correctly, you may be looking for the {{efn}} template, which produces 'explanatory footnotes'. Basically, you enter your note content inside the efn template (eg. {{efn|your text goes here}}), and then place the {{notelist}} tag wherever you want the footnote to appear. There are various options for customising this, which you can see at the {{efn}} template page. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Blanche McCrary Boyd, and there are inaccuracies as well as stupidities in the article about me. For instance, I am retired as the Weller Professor of English and Writer in Residence at Connecticut College. --BlancheBoyd (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... what would you like me to do about that? If there are erroneous or contentious claims which are not supported by reliable sources, those should be identified and either supported appropriately or else removed, of course.
However, if you are indeed who you say you are, you have a conflict of interest, which firstly needs to be disclosed (see WP:COI), and secondly means you should not edit the article yourself but instead make edit requests via the article talk page using the {{Edit COI}} template.
Hello again. As I said, I am revising the page about me since it has several inaccuracies, some important omissions, and also it is poorly written. Here's a question I need helps with:
How do I do italics in my revision? I am rewriting the entry a bit (no puffery, I promise), and I assume I'm a source since, well, I am the subject?? --BlancheBoyd (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlancheBoyd: you are not the source, you are the subject. All your edits must be supported by references to reliable published sources, otherwise they are likely to be reverted. In a sense, it doesn't matter whether something is true and correct; what matters is whether it can be supported by a reliable published source.
If you're editing the raw text source (as opposed to using the 'visual editor', which I couldn't help you with as I never use it myself), you create italics by enclosing the text inside double ' marks (by which I mean, 2 x single quotation marks, not one double quotation mark), such as here: ''sample text'' renders sample text.
Hi DoubleGrazing....Thanks for explaining. I will ask Harlan Greene, the (retiring this month) Special Collections Librarian at the College of Charleston, to address the problems I am seeing with the entry Wikipedia currently has on me. Harlan keeps an archive of my work at the College. Also I will copy my letter to him to Laura Micham, Director of the Sallie Bingham Center for Women's History and Culture at Duke University, where my papers through 1984 are now stored. Wikipedia used to have a fairly decent entry on me, but what's there now reads like a B paper in a sophomore class. I'm wondering if y'all are using AI to write this stuff now. I hope not!
@BlancheBoyd: ha! We are increasingly busy fighting AI-based contributions, and certainly not encouraging them. I think the problem is rather that too may cooks sometimes spoils the broth. One of the main strengths of Wikipedia – that anyone can edit more or less anything – is also sometimes one of its weaknesses. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Akaayu: Hello, do you beleive the this university are notable under WP:NCORP I do not comfortable to review again because We do not review draft on request behalf by the author of page, so, please carefully read the DoubleGrazing's usertalkpage notice and my usertalkpage notice also.😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable university.I studying in this university Akaayu (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akaayu: Hmmm... really you know this university are notable under WP:NCORP and I do not think all institutions/university are notable if they runned by state government and If they really notable then why they're not give approval of this article by other reviewers except me or DoubleGrazing?. 🤔~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University Please review my article.I don't know anything I am new here.If you find something wrong you can do changes.I only want to see my university name in Wikipedia only.I am not knowing what is WP:NCORP.If you want to see they are genuine you can search about them.Here is their website also www.rpnlup.ac.inAkaayu (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me or guide me to published this article.As a big brother 😎~~ Akaayu (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akaayu: I was away yesterday; seems that your draft has been meanwhile deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for Hyatt Regency Cairo West refusal[edit]
Can you please elaborate why is it always getting refused. It's merely stating facts with no advertising tone whatsoever! What can I do for it to get published? I have been trying for two weeks now to publish it and I edited many times.
Please advise what exactly do you need me to change! Mohamedmarzz (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohamedmarzz: have you read any of the decline notices? They make it quite clear what is needed. To wit, we need to see (per WP:NCORP) significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Merely 'stating facts' is not enough, there must be some reason to include this subject in a global encyclopaedia; just existing is not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DoubleGrazing. Thank you for your detailed feedback on my Karl Lagerfeld (brand) draft.
I understand that a full review of the draft will take time, but I did want to let you know that I responded to your request for 3-5 strong sources that focus specifically on the brand as a corporate entity. (There's no shortage of such examples.) Please let me know what you think and thanks again for your assistance here. MB for KARL LAGERFELD (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing. Thank you for your feedback on my my draft about Ole Skovsmose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ole_Skovsmose. I have been working on this since last year, and I would be glad to have your collaboration in making the text good enough to be finally published.
On February 1st, you wrote this comment: “The sources cited are almost entirely (co-)authored by the subject, whereas we need to know where this information is coming from. For the same reason, I'm also not at all sure of notability, but leaving that to a later review”.
So, the educator I write about is very important for Mathematics Education, with great notoriety. And to address the points you mentioned, I added information about an international collaborative project and a book, also internacional, that mentions Ole Skovsmose as the more important theorist in the development of a concept. I already made these changes in the last topic “Theoretical contributions”, and published them. I hope you can read the article again and give me your feedback if I am on the right track. Sincerely. Daniela. Bemdani (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Doublegrazing, I hope you can help me with this issue. Sincerely, Daniela. 201.46.20.3 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing, I understand your decision. However, I believe that this incident does need an article on Wikipedia.
This shooting of the kid has significant media coverage across major channels, including BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, and Times of Israel. These are reports from reputable sources. There are also more articles in Arabic and Hebrew languages. What makes this shooting different is that it has visual evidence which is shedding light on the police brutality in this area.
I also want to point out that this catagory: "Category:Police brutality in Israel" already contains similar incidents, written in similar style and context, making it a suitable catagory for the draft. Linking this incident to this catagory makes it possible for readers to read about more cases regarding this issue.
I hope you can reconsider your decision. Maybe we can invite other users to consider it too.
I didn't reject your draft (which would mean you cannot resubmit), I only declined it (which means you can, once you've addressed the decline reasons). Therefore there is nothing to reconsider, as my decline does not prevent you developing this further; you may go on to resubmit this, and perhaps another reviewer will take a different view.
Please read the policies I've pointed to in my comment: WP:BLP1E (which applies to living people only, I know, but recently-deceased are covered by the BLP rules) clearly states that low-profile individuals known only for a single event should not have articles, while WP:NOTNEWS requires events to have enduring notability. If you believe this event has wider or more lasting impact beyond daily news, you need to make that clear (corroborated by sources) in the draft.
There may well be articles describing similar incidents in the category you mention, and some of them may well be comparable to your draft (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), but that isn't how we evaluate drafts; we instead consider them with reference to the policies and guidelines applicable today.
I'm not categorically saying you couldn't have an article on this subject, but I don't believe the draft, as it currently stands, justifies it. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About proposed draft "ummo letters" (rejected)[edit]
Hey DoubleGrazing
You write "Is the intention to split off Planetary_objects_proposed_in_religion,_astrology,_ufology_and_pseudoscience#Ummo into a separate article?"
Yes, more or less that was my idea because I consider the corpus of "Ummo documents " (several thousand pages, during 60 years) as a work in itself. Whether of human or extra-terrestrial ptovnance, for the two hypothesis there are only one claim, without proof.
If you to try and see these pages as a corpus in itself, as tens of thousands of people on social networks do today since 40 years and now, perhaps you'll admit that it could also be an anonymous work of science fiction describing a perfectly "possible" world, little known to English-speaking readers because it was originally written in Spanish.
Yes, I admit, I'm a fan, as I am of "Dune" for example.
Can you help? Thanks. Paulo1950 (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have against this storied and legendary indie label that has been around for over 30 years!
Yes the articles are archived on the label site because these periodicals no longer exist!
So if you did your homework the primary source is the label site because there is no longer
URL for these magazines but all these articles are legitimate sources!
Please allow /approve the draft for Van Richter Records an article on Wiki as they certainly are more important than most of the stuff you allow as articles to be published here!
Thank you
vanrichter.net 2600:1700:E751:1C90:6CA6:A634:AA52:162E (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews and passing mentions do not contribute towards notability, and that's all you're citing as sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rc ramz has just pasted Draft:Miss Planet International to main space, and resumed editing. That account was created in Feb. 2023, and we've got plenty of legit beauty pageant obsessives, so I'm not sure whether to bring this to the the SPI. Any thoughts? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wikishovel yes, and I've just reported it. There's so much VK socking in its history that anyone editing that article/draft is a prima facie suspect in my book! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Fair enough that there wasn't enough evidence for a CU, but it was still worth filing: maybe that will support a future SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, earlier this month, advising me on how to improve my article with citations and sources.
As it is now completed and waiting for review, I thought I would bring it back to your attention. Would it be possible for you, as an experienced editor, to review my article to avoid the "up to 8 week" wait?
Hello @DoubleGrazing Apologies in advance as I am not sure of the best way to approach this, but I sent you a message on 6th March and I don't appear to have had a reply, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place! The message said: Thank you DoubleGrazing. I have added the citation you suggested to the form - at least I think it is in the correct place, but please let me know if it isn't?! With regard to Anna Pasternak - I thought I had taken care of this as I had communication with a Wiki editor who told me to include
This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Anna Pasternak for their contributions to Wikipedia.
on the talk page which I did and the editor even went in and checked it for me and let me know it was correct so I don't know why or where it had disappeared to! Would you please check that I have added the correct information to the correct place before proceeding any further with this article? I greatly appreciate your knowledge and experience with this as I am still finding my way around Wikipedia. Thank you. Lornadot (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you please let me know how to proceed?
Many thanks! Lornadot (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lornadot: thanks for the disclosure. I've edited the template on your user page slightly (it had nowiki wrappers and some other crud which prevented it from working correctly), please check that you're happy with it now.
You are now welcome to continue working on the draft, and resubmit it for another review when you feel it's ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @DoubleGrazing I will edit the page according to your advice and resubmit. Lornadot (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just being curious: do cows publish books apart from grazing those who do? 2A02:2F01:5302:7500:EC2A:E40F:E800:C86A (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly Review this , it's more than 12hours passed 106.206.70.52 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In due course. Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline. Or do you have some particular reason to rush me? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have previously reviewed one of my articles for publication (Solaris (solar power)) , and I have just submitted another one - a short biography. I was hoping you would be willing to review it too. See: Draft:Kerissa Khan.
Please note, I have added (hidden) categories ready to be used on the published article. And I have also added a "statement of interests" at the top as the most recent edit to the page. I liked the way you put a note on the discussion page of the Solaris article which linked to my statement last time, so I tried to do the same format this time.
Thank you for your time. Ennegma (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you know how much of a fanbase you have :P - my five-minute block has attracted the attention of two uninvolved users. * Pppery *it has begun... 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing has many fans!S0091 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You guys... I'm a bit moved. :)) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, Double, I kind of need your help on learning positive vs. negative edits since whenever I make any edits I get warnings. --Iheartu12346 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are well! I am reaching out to see what I need to do for my wiki page to get approved. Avempati1015 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Hi! My name is Kibirige Desire Edward (Ugandan), for so many years i have always craved to have my biography published by Wikipedia.
i am a published author of seven titles including Bard Diaries. it is my humble request that you help me about this. THANK YOU. Kibirige Desire Edward (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should not attempt to write your own biography, for the reasons described in WP:AUTOBIO. If you are notable enough, someone else may write about you one day. Until then, just focus on your real-life career.
I am happy to advice you on editing, of course, but I have no desire to get involved in writing an article about you or any other requested subject. Better yet, you can find pretty much all the advice you need on article creation at WP:YFA.
Hi @DoubleGrazing, Hope your doing good. Thanks for reviewing the draft article Krishnamma. If possible requesting you to please review thi draft article Draft:S. S. Karthikeya. Thanks in advance! Pulmowrites (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pulmowrites: sorry, I don't do on-demand reviews; I feel it is much fairer to everyone that yours goes into the pool just like all other pending drafts. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me edit it well without delecting the article Kobby Skratch (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing left a message on your talk page in "Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ll360j/sandbox".[edit]
So...I realize that much of the messaging regarding page content, moderation, deletion, etc. is autogenerated...so I am ratcheting back my general agita over the offensive terminology sent to me. My page was intended to be used for an extremely large, full-scale, emergency response exercise as part of our real-world "sandbox" and not as a "hoax." Apologies if this is not an approved use of the page, but it would have been an excellent resource that we apparently, for no articulated reason, cannot use. The page was nascent as a proof-of-concept exercise that now apparently needs to be abandoned. I strongly recommend including CLEAR guidance on policy (it is not clear) and a free-form text box that is easily found to allow people to actually explain their intent. Ll360j (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You declined Draft:National Distributist Party a few months back, I have recently edited it in line (hopefullty) with your notes and was hoping you could have another look at it.
I noticed the draft world shiology forum was deleted as it contains information or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. As far as I know, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is intended to help provide free access to human knowledge. World shiology forum is a meaningful international event, and information in the draft is genunie and not promotional. It deserves to be known by more people. And there are other world forums in Wikipedia, such as Social and Environmental Responsibility World Forum, and World Forum for Democracy. World shiology forum has similiar missions as these events. So, please enlighten me with details or anyting i can do to improve the article? Thanks. Eileenljp1116 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eileenljp1116: no draft has been deleted on the WP:U5 basis which you refer to (none that I'm aware of, at least). What has been deleted is your user page User:Eileenljp1116, because the content found there was not compliant with our user page guidelines; see WP:UP.
Your article on the World Shiology Forum was moved from the main article space to the draft space, and is now at Draft:World Shiology Forum. I declined the draft, as there was no evidence that the subject was notable per WP:ORG. I furthermore deleted sections of it and requested them to be purged from the edit history as copyright violations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank u for your quick response and explaination.
Ok for the deletion of my userpage. And I will work on the references.
As for the copyright violations, i assume it will be ok if i rewrite the deleted part (not just closely paraphrased) or add quotation mark as needed, in addition to providing sources.Eileenljp1116 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eileenljp1116: yes, you may and should rewrite the deleted sections in your own words.
Please also read and action the conflict of interest (COI) message I posted on your talk page earlier. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that had been up for more than a decade until a UPE started making promotional edits. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This player was one of the best of his time. W. L. Siriwardhana was another prominent SL volleyball player. However, there is not much work available online because they dominate their fields where social media never exist Praneethlaksiri2020 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you tagged my article for speedy deletion. And you mentioned that it sounds like an advertisement. Does it mean I can just rewrite it in a more neutral tone and once submitted it won't be deleted? I am having hard time understanding how these stuff works so if you can recommend any YouTube video on how Wikipedia works.  Vi vi gurl (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Vi vi gurl: this is, in a nutshell, how one writes a Wikipedia article:
Find a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary sources (books, TV or radio programmes, newspapers, magazines, etc.) that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
Summarise (in your own words, but without putting any 'spin' or peacockery on it) what they have said; no more, no less.
Cite each source against the content it has provided, so that the information can be verified.
This gives you the appropriate content, required referencing, as well as proof of notability (which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia) all at once. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh...we disagree...maybe? I just declined Draft:Gantt Cottage by the same editor, @VCannella3. I did so because that specific building is not listed by the NRHP individually. The listing is for the district, Penn Center (Saint Helena Island, South Carolina), which also the case with Benezet House, I think. Looking at the listing document, both are mentioned but nothing in-depth. Is it common for all the buildings within a designated historic district to pass notability? I am happy to be wrong in this situation and/or if you think it is best to accept and let others decide. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am not familiar with the Wikipedia approval requirements as I have only recently joined, but I did want to respond to your comment on the review. Yes, the listing is for the Penn Center (school district) as a whole, but it is the building's (and the history of the site) that compose the campus of the center that define the historic quality of the district. I am the one who edited the main Wikipedia article to add the list of buildings which includes the brief mention of Gantt cottage, but I thought it necessary to make independent articles, as their descriptions on the Penn center page is not comprehensive to all of their information and I thought at least that the Gantt Cottage article added more information that what was covered in the main article that added to the character and history of Penn center historic district. Please let me know if you think this is an incorrect assumption. I understand that some buildings might not have as much information or significance in comparison to others. VCannella3 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to ask about the comment that:
"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject"
As the references I listed are from the library of congress, the Penn center itself, the national register of Historic places, and the archives of south Carolina to start and I am unsure how these sources are not all of the above? Please let me know what I could do to change that. VCannella3 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091: I don't know, is the short answer; I assumed lazily that being on the register, whether as an individual building or part of a 'cluster' like this, would satisfy the WP:GEOFEAT requirement, but I may well have got that wrong. I don't even know where to go for the answer, beyond what the guideline says (which isn't very much).
I think I let this one be autopatrolled when I accepted it – do you think I should un-patrol it and let someone else take a view? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like I am in the minority as another reviewer accepted another building so I am going to resubmit Gantt Cottage and accept it. At the very least, it doesn't seem right to be inconsistent. S0091 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: hey, don't knock minority! As Gandhi said, "even if you're a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" (or something like that... and even if we don't know what the truth is). :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Blanche McCrary Boyd
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
