User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 28

Tagging pages for speedy deletion
I think you are too quickly seeking draft articles and sandboxes for CSD G11 speedy deletion after reviewing them. Some of them, which I untagged, could be improved and clearly the content creators spent time crafting them. I think, except for the most egregious cases, you should pause on tagging pages you review for deletion and allow the editors time to respond to your review comments. Deleting their work, right after submitted it, guarantees that most of these editors will leave the project and not return. While you were correct to decline them, the ones I saw were not irredeemable. Think of these articles as their first efforts as they work to become better editors. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Liz: thanks for your message, and you make fair points, of course.
 * I think this is a somewhat fuzzy line, and one that we appear to be on different sides of. I can only really use my own judgement, imperfect as it may be; trying to second-guess what the attending admin's view may be is pretty futile. (And on that point, there is quite a lot of variance in this respect between admins, which makes anticipating the response even harder, as one never knows who might pick up a particular request.)
 * Your comment about drafts being "not irredeemable" is interesting. Of course nothing is ultimately irredeemable, if one is prepared to TNT and rewrite pretty much from scratch (which many COI/promo editors aren't). But when the draft obviously isn't based on any published sources (eg. User:Dumbgamrrr/sandbox has three cites in the 1st para, the rest is completely unreferenced), and likely just contains whatever the author wanted to say, it is IMO off to such a fundamentally faulty start that redeeming it may be all but impossible.
 * Going forward, are you suggesting I must stop requesting speedies? If so, could you please elaborate? Because otherwise I propose to continue requesting them where I think this is warranted, and leave it to the attending admin's prerogative to decline the request if they disagree.
 * Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Masteryucap1 on Common Field (22:55, 16 October 2023)
Hello please how can I edited on my page? --Masteryucap1 (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Masteryucap1: I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking. If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, start by reading WP:HOW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Referencing for Michael Le Bas
Well the only references that I could find are


 * 1) ^ https://www.rafweb.org/Biographies/LeBas_MH.htm
 * 2) ^ Denis Barnham. Malta Spitfire Pilot. Ten Weeks of Terror April-June 1942, Grub Street Publishing 1956.

and citations for his medals. These seem to me to be pretty reliable references as Denis Barnham was with Michael Le Bas in the RAF in Malta as is the 1st ? Mruthsanderson (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mruthsanderson: can I ask where you got the information in your draft, given that most of it is unreferenced? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jamso23 (05:34, 19 October 2023)
How to write an article here? --Jamso23 (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Jamso23: welcome to Wikipedia!
 * Writing an article is probably the most difficult thing to do here. I suggest you first make some small edits to existing articles, so you get the hang of it. You should also read WP:HOW, which is an introduction to how to get started.
 * When you're ready to start working on your first article, go to WP:YFA, where there's everything you need to get going.
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Family Star
Now Review the draft. I think it has enough citation. Thank you in anticipation. Mr. Rasel Hasan (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I see we are playing in the same pond again
Good catch with the picture. Is it a re-creation? If so I believe it can be speeded at Commons. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Timtrent: I've requested deletion of the image, I didn't even know speedying was an option on Commons?! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Loads of speedy options on Commons. I have a gizmo that required me to request extra rights which opens up a whole world of deletion.In gadgets look of "VisualFileChange: “Perform batch task”, including the creation of mass-deletion requests, the insertion of tags or free text, and customized text substitutions. [documentation / talk] "  who need the right of Autopatroller. This is granted based on longevity and track record, but has to be applied for. You may have it already. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See c:Commons:Patrol. I see you do not yet have it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent: again, didn't even know such a thing existed! Every day is a school day for an old geezer, it seems... Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It mean you can not only follow single file to Commons, but, while you are there, can choose to inspect other uploads form that editor en masse, and decide whether you want to handle those as well. We old codgers musty stick together. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent: the thing is, I haven't done much on Commons, I don't think they would give me any special permissions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor had I. I suggested why I would benefit:
 * Experienced AFC reviewer on enwiki
 * Spam fighter
 * Good, albeit small, track record on Commons
 * Follow pictures in enwiki Drafts to Commons to check pedigree
 * Promise not to abuse the tool, VisualFileChange, which was all I needed the permission for
 * I stated the reason I needed the permission - VisualFileChange - and that I would find it very useful in helping in my small way to keep Commons clean
 * And there was small, if any, debate and they were granted
 * If you look at my own commons contributions there are few outside the deletion arena. Sometimes I am wrong, mostly right. And I take my corrections with humility and thanks, because I'm always trying to do better 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just checked your commons track record. No disputes with anyone that I could see, minor if any.  File upload work, Picture of the year work, and deletions.  340 edits is neither large nor small there.
 * The only thing I cannot find is where I requested it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * c:Commons:Requests for rights is the place. I am not sure whether you want Patroller or Autopatroller. One seems to want 500 edits, which you are close to. Perhaps the thing to do is to check the gadget on preferences and see what happens. One can always ask at the help desk "I've installed it, but nothing seems to happen?"  I think that is what I did after I'd been using a "no rights required" older versions, was instructed to change to the gadget and it stopped working. My application is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_rights/Approved/Autopatrolled/2020#Timtrent 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent: yes, that's what I'm planning to try at least, just need to get my head around the whole Commons a bit better first. Thanks for this, it's high time I put a bit more time and effort into that side as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing to know about Commons is that it is very different from here in its attitude to editors who transgress. More rope is granted. Otherwise they are strict about licencing, but tolerant or editors who report but make errors, as long as the error is not made twice.
 * I have some deletion rationales ready made. When you're ready, if you'd like them, let me know. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Kakola Funicular
I was about to ping you to that one then saw you just accepted it. :) S0091 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @S0091: haha, great minds and all that... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Akung taramun on Yamaha Corporation (16:10, 21 October 2023)
Hello Your product is amazing --Akung taramun (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Request on 06:26:59, 22 October 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Hondapolo
Just trying to learn Wikipedia editing starting with Dhiru Thadani. I have watched his interviews on YouTube and have read about his works. Took details from his website. But he is not visible on any other third party platforms like news publishers. Taking suggestion from you, I have removed parts where references are not available. I have resubmitted it. please check.

Hondapolo (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from SueoftheAntipodes (11:36, 23 October 2023)
Hello, I have found that someone called Materials Scientist now reverts my edits with Rollback or Huggle without reading them. I have apparently been labelled a 'vandal'. This is a pity, as the second paragraph of the Nick Kyrgios entry is just the beginning of a very poor section which uses a New Yorker article from 2015 as a major introduction to his bio. It is called "The Reluctant Rising Star of Tennis'. He is no longer a 'rising star'; he is no longer 22; it does not mention who has praised him (it was Federer's coach); or what for (it says his perceived style - as if Federer's coach doesn't have any authority); the opinion piece talks about 'epic rants' without mentioning that these are a feature of all players, racquet smashes which feature in most matches...in fact this is only the beginning of a very poorly written entry featuring too many sections supported only by online tabloid material. If the supervisor now reverts my attempts to edit, there is no point me trying to upgrade the site despite it being so poorly written, ignorant and biased. Kyrgios will retire through injury soon. This is quite commone in elite sports. It's rather sad that Wikipedia is still using material that was written about him when he was a very young sportsperson.SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @SueoftheAntipodes: I didn't see any instances of Materialscientist reverting your edits, unless those two edits from IP addresses were you (in which case, please remember to always log into your account when editing).
 * If you do have issues with any editor's edits, you're encouraged to discuss these on their talk page, or on the article talk page, whichever is more appropriate (and if the latter, then make sure to ping them so they know you're addressing them).
 * That said, you may wish to know that Materialscientist is an extremely experienced editor (literally in the top ten, of the 46m+ registered users on the English-language Wikipedia) with advanced user permissions including administrator. This is not to say they can do whatever they want, or that they never make mistakes, but it is saying that they know pretty well what they're doing (major understatement!) and are likely to have a pretty good reason for doing it.
 * Other than that, I can only repeat my earlier advice that you should try to resolve content disputes via the article talk page, and whatever you do you must avoid edit warring, as that is a sure-fire way to get sanctioned and ultimately blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that. I understand that this sort of issue could get very difficult, especially with delicate subjects with live biographies. Someone is using something called Rollback and Huggle so I don't think there is anything I can do to explain that the current wording is not appropriate. I don't want a war. It's good to know that Materials Scientist is the best possible. Nobody else on the talk page takes up my suggestions. I thought I was logged in automatically. Don't worry about it.SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:SwitchBot
Thank you very much for the feedback and comments you provided in my draft. Yesterday, I attempted to search for news related to the terms you mentioned on Google and added them to the first paragraph. I am eager to know if this content is effective. While you mentioned that you prefer not to be contacted to review content on this page, I still sincerely look forward to your corrections and requests. I am also grateful for the opportunity to edit the draft rather than having my page deleted. Thank you~ Additionally, I have a question. During the process of writing this entry, I noticed that the brand itself seems to lack significant coverage in terms of its notability, but the products do. Can I approach this by creating an entry from the product's perspective and use it to support the existence of the brand entry?Draft:SwitchBot Ejajsheik23 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ejajsheik23: you can create a draft on the products if they are notable in their own right, but that won't in any way 'support' the corporate/brand one, as notability is not inherited; a notable company may have non-notable products, and notable products may come from a non-notable company. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, thank you for your response. Your explanations have been very clear, and I've learned a lot. In the process of searching for and uncovering data related to the brand, I've come across many instances where the data may require login to access or isn't truly public. In such cases, is it impossible to use this data as evidence? I've added links to the article following your suggestions, but I'm unsure whether it meets Wikipedia's requirements. Ejajsheik23 (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ejajsheik23: see WP:PUBLISHED and WP:PUBLISH for advice on accessibility. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, are the links I included in the updated content incorrect, or is there some other issue? I did some research, and both of these websites are not on the non-recognized list, and from a content perspective, they don't seem to have any bias but still reflect the brand's situation. Ejajsheik23 (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Submission Of Draft
I am writing this to you to substantiate the article about Hasan Mohammed Jinnah on Wikipedia. This article is currently listed as lacking substantial references, but I believe that it meets the criteria for inclusion.

He is a state public Prosecutor of TamilNadu, who has widespread media coverage.

The article about him on Wikipedia is a well-written and informative. It covers all of the major aspects of personality and the cases in which he played a crucial role. The article is also well-sourced, with citations to reliable sources such as Tamilnadu Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR), Madras High court press release.

I believe that the article meets all of the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. It is well-written, informative, and well-sourced. It is also a topic that is of interest to a wide range of people.

I urge you to reconsider the article. I will add his Twitter,Linkedin handle and other sources here. Thank you for your time and consideration.

reference :


 * 1) https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/hasan-mohamed-jinnah-appointedas-state-public-prosecutor/article34731045.ece
 * 2) https://www.linkedin.com/in/hasan-mohammed-jinnah-809a80287/?originalSubdomain=in
 * 3) https://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/Notification%20No.%201%20of%202023%20SSA.pdf

Abayan leo (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Abayan leo: I cannot "reconsider" the draft, as I have never considered it in the first place; this has been reviewed by another reviewer, so if anyone, you need to take the matter up with them. That said, I have had a quick look just now, and the referencing is wholly inadequate, as only the 'Landmark Cases' section is supported by citations. This violates our basic verifiability requirement, as well as notability, not to mention the BLP rules governing articles on living people. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Deletion
How do I delete a draft? CouchPotato0209 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @CouchPotato0209: you can't, you need to be an administrator to delete anything. If you're the only one who has worked on that draft (other than bots or minor edits), you can request deletion by blanking the contents or placing this template on top of the page: (without the nowiki wrapper). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * interesting CouchPotato0209 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Lopua (09:14, 28 October 2023)
Hi, I am mostly interested in philosophy and technology. How do I start editing this articles? --Lopua (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Lopua, and welcome! See WP:HOW, where there is an introduction to Wikipedia editing, and links to all sorts of further sources of help. And you can always ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE or the WP:HELPDESK. Happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from ASUSs1000 on BIOS (22:10, 28 October 2023)
Asus password --ASUSs1000 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what you're saying or asking, sorry. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alfred Carl Haussmann, Jr
I'd appreciate it if you would examine my comments on this draft to see whether I have been correct and reasonable, or have been unduly persnickety. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Good morning @Timtrent:
 * It's endearing that you suggest, even in jest, that I'm in any way fit to examine your input. But FWIW, I think your comments were perfectly valid, reasonable, constructive, and generally helpful.
 * One doesn't hear "persnickety" wielded much these days. That is a pity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, well I have recognised that your opinions are trustworthy 🤡
 * I found that persnickety was not highlighted as a spelling error! I always thought it was! I used it as a joke, and found the joke was on me!
 * That you for the validation. I felt I might be going too far, but their comment on AFC Helpdesk was annoying, so they drew stern scrutiny. Boomerangs work everywhere, it seems. Unless they fail to return, when they are sticks. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Persnickety me again!
Sockpuppet investigations/Arthurmas may interest you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Timtrent: yeah, when it was declining I spotted that the decline notice went to a different user than I was expecting. Thanks for filing this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Shinko-shiki GNG
A while ago you declined the draft Draft:Shinko-shiki with what I interpreted as a statement that the article was all good but there were not enough sources to establish that it existed. I added a lot more although fundamentally didn't change the article otherwise. Is that good for it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

draft:Lindsay Mollison
Hi Double Grazing I think I have worked out how to fix the inline referencing you asked me for and have resubmitted the draft again. How do I know if it has been returned to you? Or do i just hang ten? Thanks virgobeach.

PS should I have written this here? Virgobeach (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Virgobeach: yes, I can see that you have now created inline citations, so that's great. At a quick glance they may not be quite enough, but you're on the right track.
 * Resubmitted drafts go back into the 'pool', rather than to the previous reviewer, and any reviewer who happens to come across them may review them next. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello DoubleGrazing:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank You
My goodness! I didn't think I had voted yet! Apricate it! -- Dolotta (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft "Alice in Wonderland (Neuschwanstein album)"
Dear DoubleGrazing, I've been very busy over the last few months, so it's only now that I'm getting round to working on my draft for "Alice in Wonderland (Neuschwanstein album)" again.

In your rejection of the article, you write that half of the sources mentioned are non-reliable. You mention Blogspot, Wordpress and Discogs.

Firstly, I use a total of 13 sources, one of which is Blogspot, one is Wordpress and 3 are from Discogs. That makes about 38% and not half. I can still understand Blogspot, but what do you have against Wordpress? Wordpress is a CMS system for creating websites. What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't the aforementioned website be a reasonable source? Just because it was written in Wordpress?

Now to Discogs. What's wrong with that? Discogs even exists as a template. So why shouldn't you be able to use this reputable database as a source?

I have removed the blogspot source, Wordpress too, for once. Every paragraph now has a source citation.

Just for your information: The article was originally written by me for the German Wikipedia, then translated for the French and Dutch Wikipedia. There are no problems with the sources in any other WP, although the French, for example, are also very critical.

I would therefore ask you to check the draft again and publish it.

Thank you very much! Mondra Diamond (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Mondra Diamond,
 * Firstly, just for the record, I did not reject your draft, only declined it. Rejecting means it cannot be resubmitted; declining means it can, once the decline reasons have been addressed.
 * When I said half your citations (not 'sources') are to non-reliable sources, I didn't mean 50.0% literally. But since you've picked up on that, there were (and are) a total of 20 citations (to 13 sources), and of these 9 are to non-reliable ones. So yes, you got me, it's not quite half, it's 45%. I stand corrected.
 * The problem with Wordpress and Blogspot is the same, namely that they are user-generated, with very low threshold for publishing, and usually no editorial oversight. Case in point, the Wordpress blog you're citing says in its 'About' section "Lyhyesti: Vanha patu käy läpi levykokoelmaansa ja horisee, mitä levyistä mieleen juolahtaa." That loosely translates as "Briefly: An old geezer rummages through his record collection and blathers about them whatever pops into his head."
 * Discogs is also user-generated, or at least can be, and is therefore not regarded as reliable; see WP:RSDISCOGS. It actually came pretty close to being deprecated altogether, but is still allowed, and frequently included, in the 'External links' section. Whether there is a template for linking to it, isn't the criterion for determining whether it is reliable; there is similarly a template for eg. IMDb, which is also not considered reliable (for the same reason).
 * And finally, whether an article on this subject exists in other language versions of Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as every version is a separate project with their own policies and requirements. And, as it happens, the English-language one is generally thought to have the strictest rules.
 * Having said all of which, I'm not arguing that there cannot be an article on this subject; as you will have seen in my comment, I actually think this album is probably notable. It's just that with half – sorry, 45% – of the citations not reliable, and quite a lot of the content unreferenced (the first three sections and the infobox have no citations), I don't feel that this yet passes the basic verifiability test.
 * HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)