User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 4

Regarding Foxiton
Foxiton is an Indian IT company that offers various software services and develops its own software products for clients. Foxiton was established in 2020 having clients all over India. --Sanovepunchakunnel (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting me know. And? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And they are expanding their offices to outside India. Moreover lots of new employees are getting hired to Foxiton as well --Sanovepunchakunnel (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * glad to hear it. And? (And by 'and?', I mean — what does this have to do with me?)--DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have noticed a Speedy delete as A7/G11 on Foxiton. So that I added a small section in talk page. --Sanovepunchakunnel (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * got it, thanks. Yes, I did express my view in the AfD in question that the article could have been speedily deleted. I don't think it will be speedied, though, I think it's more likely that the AfD will run its course. We'll have to wait and see. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I got your point. Thank you --Sanovepunchakunnel (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Parker (biblicist)
Hi! I'm not sure if i'm doing this right or if this will get to you... thanks so much for persevering with Andrew Parker's page with me. I am so lost with it. I have tried making amendments but i now don't know what i'm supposed to do to try and resolve the issue about deletion. My position is that i came across Andrew Parker's own website and writings through several other groups - The Iona Community / UTU Sheffield / PCN Britain etc- and i found that  other people were interested in his work and his past activities in trying to holJmmansfield (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)d institutions to account. That's why i thought of a wiki page. I would be very grateful if you would advise what i should do now. Thanks!Jmmansfield (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your message. Don't lose hope yet, the outcome of the AfD (Articles for Deletion) process is far from certain. It could generate a majority opinion for keeping the article (and if that happens, it will make similar challenges in the future much less likely); or it could be that no clear consensus emerges, in which case the article should (and I do mean should, rather than will) be kept by default.
 * The article has a number of issues, but deletion has been proposed on the grounds of notability (or rather lack of it), which IMO is borderline. Notability in the general (WP:GNG) sense is established by having multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources write about the subject; I'm assuming that you've searched already, and cited in the article any such sources that you could find, but if not, please do so now. Meanwhile specific notability for academics (WP:PROF) flows from their academic standing, where factors such as publications (esp. peer-reviewed), citations index, impact on their field, etc. are considered; there's not much you can do about that, the notability either exists or it doesn't, although if you can add anything new to further support the claim, obviously you should. I think that's about it, not much else you can do other than to wait for the AfD process to complete. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your advice and help. I asked around in the groups which study his work and was notified of two published books where he is talked about. I have included these as citations in the article. I also stated that i have done this on the "Discussion for Deletion" page. I'm hoping that will get read by someone who matters! ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmansfield (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a review
@DoubleGrazing Hi, I've noticed you have recently reviewed one of my articles, could you possibly review this one too? Thanks! Tame (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I think I've done two of yours today, IIRC. Happy to review this one also, but let's do a deal: first look at the edits I've made to your other articles, and make similar ones to this; then I'll review it. Sound fair? :) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Yea, done! Btw I didn't add any multiple issues templates as you did on Sally von Kügelgen, it's up to you if you think there are any issues. That's the whole point of me requesting you to review it and take the appropriate steps. Anyway, I added categories, made some general edits. I'm note sure what to do furthermore. I noticed you added née in Anna Sacher, which I believe doesn't comply with Mathilde Mann. Also, you made some edits on Infobox, which I'm not quite familiar with since I'm new. So it's all yours now. Thanks! Tame (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are a few more things you could do:
 * Remove most or all of the italics. AFAIK, italics are used in the names of publications, artworks, ships, etc., as well as in non-English common nouns (like inter alia), but not in people's or place names.
 * I think does apply here; it denotes a married woman's maiden or otherwise earlier name. But it's no biggie.
 * Into the brackets right after the name at the start of the lead go: ( or other earlier name in bold; DOB - DOD) (no POB - POD; those go in the infobox and/or later sections; otherwise you can include those as well). See MOS:OPENPARABIO for more info.
 * HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Thanks for all of your advice. Tame (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Btw, about the italics, while I agree with your thoughts about its use, but sometimes I use them to distinguish any specific name which might get harder to read or identify when placed after or before any title. For instance, in the article Mathilde Mann, there's a line: "Royal Danish Consul Friedrich Johann Bernhard Mann." Now it is easier to read or distinguish when it's in italic: "Royal Danish Consul Friedrich Johann Bernhard Mann." Although I understand that particular line can be rewritten in many ways. Tame (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry I couldn't review it last night, and now it seems another editor has done it; no matter, as long as it's been reviewed.
 * RE your comment about italics (and perhaps formatting etc. more generally), I appreciate that may be how you prefer to do things, but by and large we all should stick to what the Manual of Style says. If you haven't yet familiarised yourself with the MOS, I highly recommend it. Happy editing! :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing I really appreciate your time helping out and giving useful advice to a new editor like me. Peace! <3 Tame (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Hey, could you review my new article tho? I would be awed if it too gets reviewed by another user..lol. <3 Tame (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * done. I left one thing for you to do: please put punctuation before references, ie. "...end of sentence. " rather than "...end of sentence ." I noticed there were a few such instances in this article, so maybe you can go and correct them?
 * I also meant to ask you earlier: when I'm reviewing these, the review panel says 'previously deleted'; it seems you publish the article, then move it immediately to drafts, and then back into the mainspace — what's the reason for that? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Well, I make those articles off of redlinks (I put redlinks of possible new article ideas on my user page), so sometimes creating an article takes a bit longer time than I have in my hand, so I shift it to draft, then when again I have time to edit, I complete the draft and then move it to an article. I know I could just start off from my sandbox or creating the draft at first, (or some browsers can revert edits as you leave them and come back again, mine doesn't, I turned it off for some reason). Btw is this wrong to do? I mean should I stop doing that? And, you are one of the few co-operative editors I've met so far. Peace <3 Tame (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And the punctuation stuffs were by mistake, didn't notice, now corrected em tho. Thanks for poinin out Tame (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * okay, understood. I don't know if it (moving it between mainspace and drafts) is 'wrong' as such, although it could (?) possibly mess up some logs or stats, or eg. make the article ineligible for certain types of subsequent deletions or moves; I just don't know. But I'm pretty sure it is unnecessary: you can just make the initial save into drafts, not into mainspace, and that way you can then continue with your edits and only publish when you're ready. See WP:DRAFT. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing Ya got it, from now on I will quit doing that. Tho 2 of my on going drafts are already moved. So, there will be two more! Tame (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Two edits
For Pet Appreciation Day, sources are https://www.petful.com/misc/full-list-pet-holidays-throughout-year/ and https://www.richmond-news.com/in-the-community/how-to-celebrate-national-pet-day-2021-3622253, while for International Dog Day, sources are https://www.nationaldogday.com/about1 and https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/dog-day/.

Thank you and hello
Hi DoubleGrazing - Thank you very much for your welcome words and I am also very eager to contribute more to English wikipedia :). I am very interested in anything going on around Austria, especially about our modern culture, and think that some of those things here need more international visibility. I wrote with kompany my first english wiki article as I am also very interested in topics about changes in the financial world due to my studies and this seemed to be a good quick exercise about a global player from Austria with a huge impact in the financial world. However, I am planning to translate and add longer articles soon, also some that I already created in the German speaking wiki, see also: Kaffeesiederball. Do you know when the kompany talk page will probably be ready as it seems that there are some issues in how I set up the page and I would like to get more feedback on this. Wish you all the best! Frottdog (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion
Dear DoubleGrazing, I do not understand why are you trying to delete my new wikipedia article. May I ask you to provide reasons for your act? Thank You very much, with best wishes, Smoothcheeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoothcheeks (talk • contribs) 06:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not 'trying to delete'; I have proposed the article for deletion, but the decision to delete is not mine. And as for the reasons, I have done this on the grounds of notability (see WP:N), as explained in the deletion proposal (or rather, proposals — the earlier speedy deletion request, which was mysteriously removed by an IP editor, was proposed on this same basis). Speaking of which, please stop removing the proposal tag, this has no effect on the process, but can get you into trouble. Just leave it, and let the AfD process run its course. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Solo Upcoming Film
Hi DoubleGrazing, Regarding the film Solo that was proposed for deletion I understand the concerns that were raised. This film was sponsored by the Ministry of Culture of Russia in collaboration with Canon Corporation and Studio Mao. The film is notable as it is the first film directed by a female Russian filmmaker with a cast that is largely inclusive. The film is in final post-production and is listed on the Studio Mao website (link added). All the dancers are highly notable in their respective fields. Please let me know if there are additional items that would help keep this article on Wikipedia and we will try to provide. Thank you, SK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skent0501 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your message. I wonder if you're perhaps confusing notability with 'noteworthiness' or 'importance' or some such. The fact that the film is the first by a female filmmaker, and is sponsored by 'big name' organisations, and features talented dancers, etc., does not make it notable, even if those things may make it important. Notability is established by reliable, independent secondary sources writing and talking etc. about the subject; see WP:N. That may be difficult, although not impossible, to achieve for a film that hasn't been released yet. And whether the director or the cast are notable wouldn't necessarily help much either, as notability is not inherited or transferred by association; in any case, none of them seem to have Wikipedia articles in their own right, therefore notability would need to be established individually first. Short of citing solid secondary sources, I'm not sure what can be done to salvage this article, although please do study WP:NFILM (and WP:GNG) to see if you can meet any of the criteria discussed there. Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
Hello, Thank you for your message. In many cases when rating an article I assume that an existing rating is correct; if it appears likely that it is inadequate I will independently assess the article. I think is is better to rate for all the projects but caution is preferable for rating one's own articles. If another editor objects to any of the ratings they are free to upgrade one or all of them.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your reply. That is, indeed, how I used to do it... until I was told to stop, on the basis that I cannot possibly be knowledgeable enough to rate for more than one project at most. Glad to see I wasn't perhaps all that wrong, after all. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: Big Rock Creative
Hello, I seem to have hit your pet peeves with my article. I am actually grateful to have found the attention of someone with more experience. I'm reaching out to you in a few different talk pages, (I'm not sure which is the proper channel), hoping to be able to ask you a few questions about possible solutions for the fixes needed. Thank you, Krista404 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

October 27
Hi DoubleGrazing, yes I removed content from October 27 because as you said, I thought it was not notable enough of an event. Sorry for not adding an edit note to explain my reason, I am new to editing Wikipedia so I didn't know where to find the edit notes section.

I also have a question for you as you seem to be an expert on Wikipedia editing, how do I find the list of all the pages that I have edited? I mostly only edit football (soccer) Wikipedia pages.

King regards,

Lachlan


 * Hi! Thank you for promoting me to 'expert'; I'm certainly not that, merely a humble student. :)
 * The edit notes window should appear below the edits window, at least if you're editing the source, and doing so in a proper browser (not on a mobile etc.).
 * You can see your edit history at Special:Contributions/180.150.80.151.
 * I notice that you're editing as an unregistered IP editor. If you plan to continue, and I hope you do, please consider registering for an account, it makes many things easier and better. I've put a welcome message on your talk page, which tells you more.
 * Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I created an account, thank you for your help. Hey I checked, and you have 16,000 edits, I don't think calling you an expert is an overstatement :) --Lóqlen

A kitten for you!
Kiitos paljon

Lóqlen (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC) 

This article needs additional citations for verification
Hi, Could you please clarify what needs to be added to the causal map article to satisfy this message: 'This article needs additional citations for verification'

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomName15Z (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your message. Sure — every material statement should be supported by a citation, so that  a) there's no question as to where that information has come from (to avoid WP:OR original research etc.), and  b) anyone can verify the statement. An quick and easy way to find things that aren't supported is to look for paragraphs or sections that end without a citation — by definition, therefore, the last statement is without a reference. Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Please remember to sign your comments (anywhere other than on article pages), either by typing four tildes or by clicking the 'signature and timestamp' button above the edit window. Thanks. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Page draft
Hi there! Hope all is well with you. I received a message from you in March regarding my Wiki page draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gina_Tron You mentioned that it was flagged for being a negative page. That was certainly not my intention. I am a big fan of Gina's and was trying to remain neutral. I assume it was the school shooting aspect that made it appear negative? It's something she wrote about at length so I thought it was okay to include. I have edited it to make it much more positive, highlighting her award-winning writing and journalism. I love her work and feel she deserves a wikipage. Thank you so much for any consideration. Best regards, KristalGemini (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for popping by. TBH, I've no recollection of nominating this, or any other article, for speedy deletion on the basis of negativity, but looking at your talk page, I guess I must have done! (Apparently an admin later agreed with that assessment, if the article subsequently got deleted.) Anyway, if it wasn't your intention to write a negative BLP, and if you've since rewritten the article in a more neutral tone, that's great... was there anything in particular you wanted me to say or do now, or was this just for my info? Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for getting back to me! I'm super new to creating pages. So, wasn't sure if I was supposed to write back to you for you to reconsider this page. I'm assuming not haha. Hope you have a good evening!
 * Best, KristalGemini (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * no worries at all, always nice to get messages! :) As you've not submitted your draft for review or published it, I can't do much to vet it, but FWIW, on a quick scan I'd say the subject's notability is borderline at best, at least in light of the sources cited. That said, if this does come up for me to review, I'll pass, so that another reviewer can assess it instead. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Anmol Preet : Deletion Dicussion | Requesting a review
Hi, I've noticed you have recently reviewed one of my articles Anmol Preet

Anmol Preet as been a known singer in Punjab and Haryana from India, He is listed on most of the music streaming platforms as a verified artist. Here are some links to verify Spotify, Amazon Music, JioSaavn

Please do let me know what more reliable details would be required for me to retain this page.It would be very grateful if you would advise what i should do now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssswiti (talk • contribs)


 * Hi I didn't technically review the article, it had already been reviewed by the time I saw it. But yes, I did take it to AfD on notability grounds: I'm not doubting that the person exists and is a singer, I'm contending that they aren't notable enough to warrant an encyclopaedia article. If you look at the notability criteria which I've cited in the AfD nomination (WP:GNG and WP:SINGER), one or both of those is what you need to try to satisfy before the AfD closes. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Please remember to sign your comments (anywhere other than on article pages), by either typing four tildes, or clicking the 'signature and timestamp' button above the edit window. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting
@DoubleGrazing Hi, I've noticed you have recently reviewed one of my articles, could you possibly review this one too? Thanks!Rza835 (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi what is 'this one'? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_ŞahinRza835 (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I already have; it got reviewed automatically when I added the notability and BLP sources tags. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't we delete it?Rza835 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * delete what, the article? That's what I have indeed proposed a couple of times already. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please decline the offer. let us do the editingRza835 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to withdraw the AfD nomination, if that's what you mean; I still think that the article could easily have been speedily deleted, so the least that should IMO happen now is that it goes through the AfD process. You're more than welcome to continue meanwhile editing the article, of course, as long as you don't remove the AfD tag. Just to say, though, that the main aim of your editing should be on establishing notability, which is the basis for the AfD, and also supporting the article with more and better sources as it is currently almost unreferenced; otherwise further work on it may not have the effect of stopping deletion. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I realize this is a late reply, but thank you so much for nominating it for AfD instead of CSDing it. This article has been word-for-word created and deleted like 4 or 5 times by the same editor as above under the names Emil Şahin and Emil Shahin. The AfD gave us G4 CSD criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * heh, let's call that a happy accident — I did first try for a speedy, but it didn't succeed; I guess that's just as well, then. Yeah, the force does seem to be strong with this one. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Dee Anderson's wiki
Hi, thanks so much for your welcome message. I have just popped back to see the article has been reviewed and I am unsure what the revisions I need to make should be. Are you able to advise? Thanks, WonderJen — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderJen (talk • contribs) 12:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your message. Looking at the article again, the revisions you need to make are pretty much those flagged by the maintenance tags on top of the page, namely:
 * You need to support each material statement with citation to a reliable, independent, secondary source; currently there are several unsupported statements, and where sources have been cited, they're not of the required standards (apart from the single cite of The Indy) — this not only means that the article falls foul of the WP:BLP rules, it also fails to establish the notability of the subject.
 * The tone and contents should be appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry, ie. factual and neutral, avoiding terms like 'iconic' and 'legendary'. In the same vein, the contents should focus on what this person has done that makes them notable, not who they are associated with, etc.
 * External links aren't allowed in the body text. If they are relevant as supporting sources, they should be cited in the normal fashion. Otherwise they should be removed (with the exception of the person's own official website, which can be listed in an 'External links' section).
 * Other, more minor issues such as capitalisation of the section headings (should be in 'Sentence case' per WP:MOS) can always be dealt with later.
 * Also, as per the separate COI message I posted on your talk page, you should disclose any relationship you may have with the article's subject. If you have no such relationship, that's great, but you should still mention that in response to the COI message, so that the matter is not left open. Part of the reason for querying this is that the picture used in the article has been uploaded as your 'own work', which implies that you have at least been face-to-face with the person in question, which in turn suggests there could be more to it.
 * It is of course up to you how much if any of this you decide to do, but the more you improve the article the better its chances of passing review and being (re)published. Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much - this is really useful! I help out lots of UK showbiz people and decided to use Dee as a test subject for Wiki's I want to put together. Poor Dee! And poor you guys lol. I may be around quite a bit from now on. :) WonderJen (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)WonderJen

Ivan Montik
I was wondering if you had noticed that the draft and the article are almost identical although they appear to be by different accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi yeah, there's something not quite right with that, and the related article SoftSwiss; many editors getting involved, some with little or no edit history. It seems ducky, of either sock or meat variety — meant to look into it today, but got sidetracked into other things. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at SoftSwiss, and I saw that there has been edit-warring. I think that there really are two "sides" on SoftSwiss.  I have submitted an SPI with regard to Montik.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hola. Was going to AfD Softswiss when I noticed the edit war and looked at some of the sources being used to stand up the anti-Softswiss narrative - although the allegation that multiple brands using their software have been blocked by authorities appears true, it's not quite born out by the sources (and the link to Softswiss itself is tenuous), so there is an element of OR in there. It would appear that a goodly slice of investigative journalism would uncover a large can of worms here - sadly, not our role to fulfil. However, there does appear to be a large can of COI/UPE/socks! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SiliconProphet
Apologies, I was merely pinging you on User:SiliconProphet's talk page, it wasn't really a direct reply to you. But yes, IMO you were being far too gentle! Certainly from the point of view of the crew working on the Special:WantedCategories backlog, we really don't want people adding WP:REDNOT categories with a view to adding them later... Cheers Le Deluge (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * no worries, and a point well noted! From now on I will be firmer with anyone I catch creating red cats! :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Like talking to the wall
But thank you very much for trying. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

List of national flag proposals
Hello! I had some doubts in regards with the tags in the new article I created "List of national flag proposals". In regards to the "verifiability", the sources for each proposal is within the file data itself, does it still need to be written somewhere in the article explicitly, or is it valid to just have it in the image page? In regards to the "original research", does it mean that the new original research in this article must also be adequately added to each of the flag's pages? For example, any new proposal for the flag of Ukraine must also appear in the article "Flag of Ukraine"? Kind regards and thanks for moderating! Germenfer (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your message. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the file data itself'; I looked at a couple of image files, and they didn't have any source info on them. Can you point to one that does? In any case, I think it's not enough for the images to be referenced, the article also needs to be, although I could be wrong.
 * As for other articles where these proposals are mentioned (and hopefully well referenced), it might be enough to provide a link from this article to them, with a note saying references can be found there. But again, I didn't see such links from this article.
 * Finally, on a point of completeness: taking the case of Finland as an example, the proposals section there shows an image with 38 proposals prior to the current adopted one; your article lists only 6, and it's not clear why those 6 in particular are included. (On which point, you should probably tag the article as incomplete.)
 * For all these reasons I placed the OR tag on the article, as it's not clear where the information has come from. Just to clarify: I'm not saying it's not true, just that the source is not obvious. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. Some of the flags in the article are taken from other sub-pages, such as the proposals of China for example, which I just simply copied to this new compendium. For these, I wrote "See x", as can be seen on the article. On the other hand, the new "original research" is cited as mentioned in the file itself, such as, where the source is cited in the "Summary2 section of the file. I will try to add the sources nevertheless in the article itself aswell if needed. Finally, it is true that the article is incomplete (an example being the Finland proposals you mentioned). The files that are missing is mainly due to the fact that they are not in Wikimedia Commons yet, that is why I added a "Notes" section with the missing flags temporarily as I work on vectorizing them. UPDATE: I added "incomplete" boxes that redirect to the msissing flags in the talk page. Germenfer (talk) Thank you very much for the feedback again. Kind regards! Germenfer (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Aigul Nuryieva
Hi Double Grazing,

Thanks for taking the time - the details (boring as they are) of the entities are important - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Laundromat

If you have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubov_Chernukhin - the joint director on these entities you will see why this is notable

Happy to take some pointers in style, just need a little more time to bring a complex picture together.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendalandrew (talk • contribs)


 * Hi it's not whether the details are 'boring' that I took issue with; it's that I don't get how they're relevant. It seems to me that by listing company details etc., you're implying some sort of impropriety or hidden secrets, only it's not obvious to me at least what they are. My view is that this could fall foul of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:OR. Don't get me wrong, I've no issue with investigative journalism, I just don't think Wikipedia is the right platform for that.
 * BTW, I can see that you've done similar things with one or two other articles, also, and I may deal with those the way I did with the Nuryieva article, ie. delete what I don't think belongs there, and possibly AfD what remains, if notability looks shaky. Fair warning, and all that. ;)
 * If you want to explain any of this in the hope that I might get it, please feel free to. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Please sign your comments on talk pages, thanks

Hi Double Grazing, please consider that the 'dull' stuff on companies that have never turned a profit, are part of a complex web of ownership that crosses multiple borders, are controlled off-shore, and show a long-term relationship between people making massive political donations is actually very relevant - we will never know if what was being done was part of the "Laundromat" what we can evidence is that a UK government website (companies house) shows the markers of the laundromat were there. For that reason I have been religious about refencing to the Companies House website and high quality sources (Guardian, BBC, New York Times etc) and not including any original research. Please read the whole article and citations before making any changes.

Kendalandrew (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * okay, thanks, although I have to say I'm none the wiser. I trust you'll have nothing against me raising this at ANI, so that someone higher up the food chain can take a view. The thing that worries me especially is the BLP aspect of this, and I still think there is OR/SYNTH possibly involved as well. If it turns out I'm wrong, great, and next time I'll know better. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Zep, Inc.
Hi, thanks for reviewing my new article. I can see how this could look like a conflict of interest, especially considering my recent misunderstanding over another article I tried to create. Zep is a company that is local to me, and I came to realize that an article didn't exist for them when I was looking at the Acuity Brands article (which I was looking at because I had noticed a plaque naming the public area outside the Georgia Tech College of Management for that company, and I was wondering what the connection was...anyway...it was a whole rabbit hole, and I never did get around to answering my original question.) In any case, I decided to clean up the history section on the Acuity article, and that process led me to a lot of sources about Zep specifically to the point where I started outlining a potential article for the company on the side and then proceeded to forget about it for a couple of months. It's been awhile since I've built an entire article from scratch like that, and I noticed that you tagged it as sounding like an advertisement. I tried my best to strip out as much of the boosterish language that I could as I was drafting, but I'd appreciate any feedback you could provide on what is still an issue. LaMenta3 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your reply. I ummed and ahhed about that advert tag, the article is certainly far from the worst case I've seen (!), but I decided to tag it in the end while waiting for you to respond to the COI query. If you're saying there is no COI issue, and if you want to remove the advert tag, go ahead — I don't have an issue with that, and I certainly won't put it back on. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is still a WIP, for sure, and I had been actively looking for some controversies or regulatory issues or *something* because you know all companies have them. :) I haven't come up with anything definitive yet, though there might be something with a former CEO that is sticking in my brain that I might have read in the local news several years back that I haven't been able to pin down. I'll leave the tag up for now, as the article as it stands is still a little too sparkling even for my tastes. LaMenta3 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

For info
Hi DG - hope all is well. RE: your ping about M. Zaid (blogger), there's more background here. And the editor behind the ping to me made several cross-wiki page moves to this article in an attempt to hijack the base-name. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so that's why I couldn't find it, the article title is different. Looks like an interesting 'provenance', also. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

>

Requesting a review of decision
Dear DoubleGrazing, Deb has recommended 'speeedy deletion' of the page i wrote about Shivantha Wijesinha stating (sic) "I have deleted your article because the only place you are allowed to write about yourself is on your own user page." I am NOT writing about myself. My name is Samson Wijesinha. Although Shivantha and I have the same surname, he is NOT a direct relation. He is a member of my extended family (a "nephew" in the Sri Lankan sense!) and I felt that he needed to have a page on Wikipedia because he has acted in so many movies and TV series that are listed on Wikipedia; on these several pages, his name is listed without an internal reference. Since I have a good command of English, I felt that I should contribute an article about him to Wikipedia. I have quoted credible sources in my article to substantiate what I have written about this young man, who has made a name for himself in the acting world (please check his IMDb page). I would be grateful if you check the unbiased sources and references that i have used, and reconsider your decision to delete my article. Thank you very much. Mr. Samson Wijesinha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson Wijesinha (talk • contribs)
 * Hi thanks for your message. However, just to be clear: I did not make any 'decision to delete' the article; I have no such powers. I proposed it for deletion, and an administrator came along, reviewed the article, and deleted it.
 * Whether or not you are a close relative of the article subject — and assuming good faith, I accept your assurance that you're not — you still have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) when writing about someone that you know personally. I can see that a message has been previously posted on your user talk page about COI, and I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with the guidelines.
 * As for the reasons why I requested deletion, I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the subject was important, as backed up by credible, reliable sources. You may have felt he needed an article; his name may have been mentioned in other articles, as you say, but neither is a reason to have an article.
 * In conclusion, I realise it's disappointing to have an article you created deleted, but I do think this was the right decision, all told. If you are going to create the article again (and I would suggest you don't, per the COI guidelines), you must establish notability (WP:N) beyond any doubt, and write in strictly neutral, non-promotional tone. Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear DoubleGrazing, Thank you for your message and for explaining your decision to propose deletion of my article. I am disappointed - but I have to abide by your decision, and I am grateful to you for explaining your reasons to me in detail (unlike your naive colleague "Deb" who made a knee jerk reaction by mistakenly and foolishly assuming that I was writing about myself simply because the subject had the same surname as I do!). I guess Shivantha Wijesinha will have to wait until he meets the criteria for 'Notability' as required by Wikipedia. Kind regards, Samson Wijesinha
 * . That's funny, seeing as you admitted he was a member of your "extended family". Please read No personal attacks and don't ever again call any other editor "foolish" just because they do something you don't like. Deb (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Deb, Since you have taken the liberty of writing a response to me on DoubleGrazing's User page, let me set the record straight Best wishes, Samson Wijesinha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson Wijesinha (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your colleagues, DoubleGrazing and C.Fred, wrote to me, clearly and politely explaining the reasons for the deletion of my article.
 * You in contrast wrote to me stating (I quote) "I have deleted your article because the only place you are allowed to write about yourself is on your own user page. Note that you will NOT be allowed to link to your Youtube channel, blog, Instagram account or any other such content or to promote your skills, services, publications, recordings, etc"
 * You mistakenly and foolishly assumed, just because the subject I was writing about had the same surname as myself, that I was writing about myself. You also (without reading the article itself) drew my attention to the fact that links to Youtube channels, blogs etc were not allowed. You DID NOT read my article before deleting it. In fact, if you had perused the article, you would have realised that there were absolutely NO LINKS to Youtube, blogs, Instagram etc.in my article.
 * I used the adverbs 'mistakenly' and 'foolishly' to describe your actions - not you personally. I was not personally attacking you - although you chose to construe my use of the appropriate adverbs as personal attacks and even went so far as to threaten me. I am reminded of that English phrase "If the cap fits....."
 * You claim to be (sic) 'an experienced administrator'. I note that on 30th March 2021 you were wished a "Happy First Edit Day, Deb, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!". Whatever that means, "experience" is no substitute for intelligence, knowledge and careful attention to detail.
 * I have nothing more to say to you, Deb - other than to wish you a happy and fruitful career as a Wikipedia administrator. May you learn and grow in your job - and perform your duties in future with intelligence and efficacy.