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)
@FloridaArmy Happy New Year to you as well! S0091 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
Happy New Years S0091! Wishing you a happy and healthy 2024. :) PigeonChickenFish (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there S0091. Happy New Year! Sorry to bother you but it's been over a month since I last submitted the page Draft:Blockchain-based Service Network under Afc. Could you kindly inform me what is the next step and what should I do now? Bensaujana (talk) 06:25, 3 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)
Appreciate your help! I've submitted using Afc for review. Have a great new year! Bensaujana (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Rose Harlean
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 @Mach61 thanks for the thought but I am not interested in becoming an admin because I don't think I would find it enjoyable. S0091 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
My draft
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)
Hi @46302Julia since the draft is now deleted, I cannot see it so am unable to give you specifics. However, I suggest reading Your first article and Words to watch. I will leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Rex Heuermann
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)
alright understood Jlvshistory (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Request on 21:19:10, 19 January 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by 2603:8000:713F:79F:A567:86EB:690C:834A
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)
Note: Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft Article before replying. This is currently discussed in a lot of places, including my and GoingBatty's talk page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:11, 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)
@Wikiusers2024 no problem! It happens even with experienced editors. S0091 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 60
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
R.J. Shook Draft Wiki
Hello, Thank you for your comments.
I have a few thoughts and several questions.
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://en.wikipedia.org/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)
@Jasper Deng I am not sure why you are mentioning Kamila Valieva as I have never edited that article. ?? S0091 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
And you are the one who reverted Ілля Криворучко on that article. S0091 (talk) 18:28, 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)
Dear S0091, i have addressed your comments here and improved the article by making improvements here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmad_Bazzi and including references to show notability. I would appreciate your feedback and time. Thanks a lot. Randomreader162 18:44, 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)
Wouldn't the number of times a page has been visited over the past year dictate its usefullness? 12DionneJ (talk) 19:44, 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)
Again, Toyota is a primary source so cannot be used to establish notability. You have resubmitted the article so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 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 What's the title of the draft? S0091 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Toyota H-Series Transmission 12DionneJ (talk) 20:31, 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 Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTADATABASE (read that). However, Wikidata is and might be where this information belongs. S0091 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This does not fall under what is listed in that link. 12DionneJ (talk) 21:08, 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)
Hi @1AmNobody24, I think it falls under WP:FACTSONLY and WP:LIMITED but if you disagree I have no issue with you adding the tag back. In the interim, I have added an inline tag. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I can agree to it being LIMITED, but not FACTSONLY, as i don't think you can apply that to a word-for-word copied sentence. Nobody (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Submission declined
Hi,
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.
Xanareld Xanareld (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
So I should add more content in order to being accepted if it problem i will thanks for looking into it WhiteReaperPM (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Maryam Nawaz Sharif
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! TLAtlak 08:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@I'm tla sorry about that. I was going by Robert's note so posted a request at WT:AFC. Had I known it could just be deleted, I would requested it then. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see now. Primefac moved the redirect to a different a title so assuming they saw my request at AfC. S0091 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah two Oh Eun-young's. Maybe I'll see if the model could qualify for an article. TLAtlak 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@I'm tla, you can't use CSD on a redirect like that - only ones that have no significant history. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, which what the note on the draft stated but I suppose TLA couldn't wait. S0091 (talk) 17:57, 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.
I've completed my second edit in my Sandbox. I would like to get your suggestions about this edit and point out any faults in it. Thank you. Tomlovesfar (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
@Goodman.emilye The Advocate will likely be helpful along with the tone improvements. Local news for a local politician is generally not enough. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 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)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sills cummis & Gross. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gdavis22 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 61
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
Thank you for the advice on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Lozupone , I was not using this site much only noticed because the user nominated two of my articles I created and notified me on my talk page, even though for this article I did not make most of the material. You found better sources for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete List one of them which is very good, thank you. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 18:03, 7 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)
@ThreeBootsInABucket They did some copy editing, added citation needed tags, added a couple more works in the discography, added Template:Authority control and removed Discogs since is it not a reliable source (see WP:DISCOGS). I don't see anything unreasonable. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes all that is good, but in the first edit why did the user remove the title of a citation? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 16:46, 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)
Hi sir @S0091, Hope your doing good, Requesting you to please review this draft article Draft:UV Creations. Thankyoy! Saishna96 (talk) 17:26, 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.
Once again thankyou for the reply! ~~ Saishna96 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@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)
Noted sir, Thankyou for the guidance! ~~ Saishna96 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Second Violation of Article - February 2024 | EDI Wiki page edit
Hi Dave
Was there any reason why you missed the link to the page https://datatrans-inc.com/edi-856-advance-shipping-notice-asn/ linked from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_data_interchange wikipedia page, since it seems blatant advertising? I am trying to understand if there is any clear reason you can show me as to why only edits by some of the users are being removed by other wikipedia editors such as you, even when those edits point to educational content - but why you miss those other pages? Ann Alwis (talk) 06:04, 19 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)
Hi, sorry. Once we clicked the link given by him, it redirected to your page. Not sure why. Ann Alwis (talk) 09:06, 21 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)
thanks for the response, then article will not be possible due to the lack of these external sources MEXDOOMER1 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Salwa Jarrah
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)
Ok, thank you for clarifying this for me. 199.111.212.95 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Draft:T.J. Knabb
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 I took a stab at merging. S0091 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
That's great. Above and beyond. Thank you! For sure we now know that the venue existed. JSFarman (talk) 16:26, 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)
Hi @Dreamboy3143 this is a publication by MESAM, which is a trade union that aims to protect the copyrights and collect royalties for its members so is not an independent source. It's probably fine to use for verifiability but not useful for notability. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @S0091 Thank you for clarifying. How about if 2 songs of the artist officially charted on Shazam - top 200 Turkey. Is this going to be useful for notability? Also, one of the biggest Turkish Tvs Show TV features artist’s music 5 days a week at the moment [[3]] . Can this also be considered within the notability criteria?. The artist's music features in this program https://www.showtv.com.tr/programlar/tanitim/didem-arslan-yilmazla-vazgecme/2742user:Dreamboy3143 00:22, 1 April 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)
Question
@Ivanvector, @Rosguill, pinging you here because it is a quieter place. Should the comments by DIVINE on Usertobecool's talk page, at least in part, be removed or OS'd? S0091 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
THanks S0091. Yes, I've removed that info, and let oversight know about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't seen them, so no opinion. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:42, 3 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)
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
