User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 16

article review "philipp ackermann"
hi, reg the article - there are no further sources i could reference. the onces i cited are all legitimate, so not sure where the problem exactly is? thanks for your help. Baums A (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Baums A: the problems are two-fold:
 * Most of the draft is unreferenced. Paragraphs 2-4, which collectively make up at least ⅔ of the content, don't have a single citation. Where is that information coming from, and how do we know it's correct?
 * There is no evidence that the subject is notable. Ambassadors are not 'inherently' notable, hence they need to satisfy the WP:GNG general notability standard, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The two YouTube clips are interviews, and therefore cannot establish notability. The other three don't provide significant coverage of him.
 * Accordingly, I will have to decline this draft again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * that's odd - on 2: the german wikipedia site actually has articles on almost all sitting german ambassadors and has even a dedicated site for it: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_amtierenden_deutschen_Botschafter_und_St%C3%A4ndigen_Vertreter so with regard to "notability", it seems you dont have coherent standards.
 * on 1: will add more links on newspaper articles who cover public statements. however, on the biographical information: a little bit puzzled. do you expect to find references for biographical information like where someone went to school? if this is your standard, hardly any biographical information could be hosted by wikipedia. Baums A (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Baums A:
 * Regarding notability: with respect, what the German-language Wikipedia does is up to them; each language version is an entirely separate project, with their own rules and guidelines, including (but not only) for notability. Of the versions I've worked with, the English-language one has considerably stricter requirements than the others, therefore it frequently happens that an article is accepted into another Wikipedia, and yet declined here on the English one.
 * Regarding referencing: yes, it is very much expected that all information is supported by reliable published sources; this is at the core of how Wikipedia works: an article creator shouldn't write what they know about a subject, but they should rather summarise what published sources have said about it. If no published source has given, in this case, the person's biographical details, then you cannot include them in an article; this is especially important in articles on living people, see BLP. (In any case, how would you know those details if they haven't been published? Or if you know them because you're personally acquainted with the subject, then that in itself raises a different concern, namely that of conflict of interest.)
 * Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

How could Test that Articles are from Reliable sources?
Hi There, I would like to know How Could I test someone's Articles from Reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibd23 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Swimming in the same pond!
Draft:Arkan Shahab - We meet again! I was tempted to accept it, but I think it was teetering on the wrong side of the borderline. If you disagree please feel free to accept it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Timtrent: we already had one EC, so thought I'd get out of the pond before further clashes. :) Hard to tell whether this meets NPOL, so FWIW I'm sure you were right to decline until we see some proper evidence of that. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with swimming laps in lanes! MW software ought to work out how to lock things, really. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Help me to understand and exact changes for the sources
Hey Mate please help me with understanding for my mentioned sources which mentioned sources falls in which category in current article.. and e.g. what i can do so that admin will accept the article and give his valuable go ahead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shree_Ramkrishna_Exports — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankoSayHi5 (talk • contribs)

Request on 09:38:59, 19 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by FrankoSayHi5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shree_Ramkrishna_Exports Please help me with article creation. Out all sources quoted by me which one is right and which one is wrong or not eligible. I read all articles but still i am falling short FrankoSayHi5 (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Early end of the backlog drive
A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Pie Insurance
Quick rejection! Please help me understand: this article is comparable and virtually identical to dozens of other insurance company articles with far fewer credible sources. The article contains citations from Bloomberg, Tech Crunch, Forbes, and multiple third-party insurance industry sources. What more is needed? Clearly, far less was needed for a multitude of comparable insurance companies, almost none of which have experienced such rapid growth and success. Thanks. Danceswithedits (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Danceswithedits: you mustn't compare your drafts with existing articles, see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drafts are only judged in reference to the relevant guidelines, in this case WP:GNG, and by extension, WP:ORGCRIT. Your draft cites routine business reporting, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Moreover, Forbes contributor content is not considered reliable (see WP:FORBESCON), TechCrunch is flaky at best, and Crunchbase is a deprecated source. (And just for the record, I did not reject this draft; I declined it.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid comparing and contrasting is what makes us sentient beings. Fact is, this article quite easily surpasses many published Wikipedia pages within the exact same subject category in terms of notability and references. TechCrunch is in no way flakey, as I know firsthand from working on robotics articles for Boston Dynamics and publishing articles for Fast Company, among others. It's one of the most widely read and credible cross-industry tech journals online today. TechCrunch - Wikipedia. Thanks for reject/decline clarification. I've added two more citations and one additional entry in the history section. Danceswithedits (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding TechCrunch Reliable_sources/Perennial sources says "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability." Hope this helps. Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Danceswithedits Comparing and contrasting with other articles is the equivalent of saying to the traffic cop "yes, I realise I was driving 90 mph in a 60 speed limit, but I was going no faster than the other cars on the road; that's what us sentient beings do". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Poor analogy. Comparing and contrasting is how human beings evolve and rationalize. Your analogy refers to breaking a law. My comparison directly connects an article to virtually identical articles that have been published. If your analogy were valid, all those others would be unacceptable and therefore subject to removal. You're no cop. This article breaks no rules. But, nice try! Danceswithedits (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Asanka Gallege (12:34, 27 October 2022)
Hi there, I'm new to being a Wiki Editor. Right now, I'm working on updating the existing article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Somadeva My draft is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asanka_Gallege/sandbox Really appreciated if you could review it and give some pointers to make it better. --Asanka Gallege (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Asanka Gallege: the first thing to say is, there is no point in developing a new draft on this topic in your sandbox, because that will never be accepted for publication since it duplicates an existing article. You need to make your improvements to the published article instead.
 * Another thing: I can see that you've tried changing the person's date of birth, based on what they have told you. This might seem like a reasonable thing to do, but unfortunately here on Wikipedia we can only go by published sources, not by private communications like that. (This is especially important in articles on living people, see WP:BLP.)) If you can find a source that gives the 'correct' date of birth, please cite it clearly when making the change.
 * I also noticed that many of the new references you've added cite YouTube and Facebook, which are user-generated and therefore almost never acceptable as reliable sources.
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Help Me out in Making an article about Someone
Do let me know how we can create wiki pages and articles without going against of any community guidelines Teamazaad (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Article getting rejected
Hi. Could you let me know what specifically made you reject my article and what can I do to improve upon it? AK01092001 (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @AK01092001: I didn't reject the draft, I declined it, meaning it can be resubmitted after it has been improved. The reason why I did so is that the sources listed (which incidentally aren't cited inline, although they should be — see WP:ILC) are not sufficient to establish this person's notability per WP:GNG, while there is nothing in there to suggest any other type of notability such as WP:CREATIVE. (PS: I've also posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest; please read and action it.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Article got declined
Hi, RiddhiG123 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you please help me understand how my article is not supported by reliable sources? I have added links that are adequate. Let me know if certain links can be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiddhiG123 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * do you mean User:RiddhiG123/sandbox? There are no references. Yes, there are a few inline external links, but those are a) not the same as references, and b) in any case not allowed. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.


 * I've also posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest (COI); please read and action as appropriate. Thank you, --

Can I remove inline external links and resubmitt article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiddhiG123 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @RiddhiG123: if you can use those external links as references, please do so; otherwise, you'll need to remove them. Whether they also are enough to a) support the article contents, and b) establish the notability of the subject, remains to be seen of course; you may need to provide additional references. And yes, once you've done all that, you can resubmit the draft for another review. Don't forget to response to the COI query before you do, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong
Oh, the irony! Ah wait, that wasn't irony! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My article got declined.
Hello, sorry for the inconvenience, but I was wondering why my article got declined. Please let me know on what I should improved and fix.

Thanks - Axton AxtonRuiz36 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm
That argumentative AFC talk page editor seems to specialise in borderline battleground editing. Not quite the wrong side of the line, but close to being on it.

Thank you for the "Not a whit" reply 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Timtrent: I don't get to use 'whit' anywhere near enough, so grabbed that opportunity with both hands. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Whit" should be used far more frequently. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What
What is wrong with my article Molybdenum VI hydride? 46.166.47.161 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As it says in the decline notice, the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. There is one source listed, but it isn't cited, so it's impossible to know which part(s) of the content it supports. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. (And please log into your account when posting messages or otherwise editing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Per_Leth-Nissen
Hi,

I added citations for all the material and removed The Filmografi. Can you approved the article now? Have a great day. SHAPEYourFuture (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Four-component instructional design model
Thanks for spotting the copyright violation at Draft:Four-component instructional design model. I looked a bit more into it and the draft is likely copied from all of its sources so instead of revdel, I've listed it for further investigation. I've made some notes on the draft's talk page. I don't have time to dig into this deeper right now but will look at it later, but feel free to do further investigation if you can or are willing. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks @Whpq. I can't remember if the copyvio detector didn't spot these when I checked, or whether I was just too lazy to clear out everything. I'll take another look. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think these were picked up because they are in academic papers requiring access.  I have access to some papers through The Wikipedia Library -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Approval of Article
Hi there, I have written a article and submitted ref as hindi news paper where all information about the well known was given but you have rejected can you guide me to complete this article please. Regards Unosaarcyouth (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

How Many Articles should I require for creating Articles in Wikipedia?
I would like to know How Many Articles should I require for creating Articles in Wikipedia? Wikibd23 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

How could I test those articles from Reliable sources?
Please I would like to know. How could I Test those articles from Reliable Sources ?

Thank you. Wikibd23 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

First instincts are best!
I bet it gets kept! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well if does, then it's good you moved it @Timtrent, so it doesn't spoil my AfD stats. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cynic!!!! 😈😈😈😈😇😇😇😇👀👀👀👀👀 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 53
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 53, September – October 2022 
 * New collections:
 * Edward Elgar
 * E-Yearbook
 * Corriere della Serra
 * Wikilala
 * Collections moved to Library Bundle:
 * Ancestry
 * New feature: Outage notification
 * Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem
Hello DoubleGrazing I did try to find the reliable source but people are calming copyrights so i did try to find uncopyrighted sources so i will resubmit again and if we can find uncopyright sources 74.62.14.55 (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You don't need to find 'uncopyrighted sources' (if such a thing even exists); it's perfectly okay to cite sources that claim copyright, you just can't copy content from them (or from any source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I added sources so can you check if it ok to except. 72.132.8.90 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)