User talk:Gusfriend/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Gusfriend, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Square / Block comment on talk page
Gusfriend, I see that you commented on the Square (financial services company) talk page. The section where you left your comment is an old/stale discussion. You may want to repost your comment in the sections titled "How to show support for name change?" or "IAR" instead. Chrisclear (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added it to the IAR. Gusfriend (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

yeah, well, ...
so youre young enough to not know the toecutters by their names? Notability of a Melbourne solicitor with 10 refs and intrinsically linked with the gangland killings and you want more? nah, youre overstepping the threshold dont you think? Your user page gives it all away, and honestly, there are hundreds of oz articles with less refs and blood and gore that stand alone unchallenged. All this in good humour of course, I didnt have to step over dead bodies in the cross or darlinghurst in the old days, but got close to it... JarrahTree 02:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In terms of notability I have recently spent some time looking at AfDs and if one were raised for the page then there is a decent chance that the result would be a redirect to Lewis Caine and a note on a couple of other pages. To avoid that happening I added the tag in the hope that people would find things like the fact that she was suspected of tipping off Moran to improve the page. I also have no problem with someone removing my note about notability because (a) it is just my perspective and (b) my viewpoint is affected by reading AfDs. Gusfriend (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * well youre in the wrong business unless you have a good flack jacket - your honesty and reply put you in the calm and cool brigade, so few left in this damned colander... and I understand your hope that people would find things - just like a melbourne lane, strong smell but maybe no workable evidence... You deserve a long editing life with a reply like that, scuse me while I look for that safe house on the east coast of tassie for a quiet time away. JarrahTree 02:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to AfD
Hi Gusfriend,

Welcome to Articles for Deletion. I have noticed that several some of your AfD comments fall under Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (such as this one, which falls under WP:INHERITED) as they are usually ignored by deletion discussion closers. May I recommend a thorough read of the rules as well, such as WP:AFDEQ and WP:DISCUSSAFD? Since you seem to be new to AfD, I highly recommend brushing up on those. Please also remember that you cannot vote twice like you did here, and that you should use Template:Strikethrough if you accidentally do so. Have a good one! Pilaz (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for passing that information through.Gusfriend (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spending some of your time at AfD and keeping the process up and running, regardless. You'll pick up all the complexities and contradictions of Wikipedia guidelines and policies in no time. Pilaz (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this advice, I noticed your comment at Articles for deletion/Illinois Northern Railroad and it gave me pause. The question there was whether the article was a hoax or not (it was). If it really did exist, a railroad operating 110 miles of track in the United States would pass our notability guidelines. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Piet Mondrian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stub. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Note on DAB page telling people that changes will be reverted
I just went to edit Australia national football team (disambiguation) and there is a message in the page saying the following and I was wondering if that is appropriate or if it should be removed.

Gusfriend (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects are allowed to advise on topics and have guidelines/standards for pages, but they cannot mandate that all changes have to go through them first. I have removed the note. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! Please look at my draft. I am ready to listen to comments and correct the article. Thanks!31.40.143.16 (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It is probably better to wait for someone who understands Russian and can read the references as only one of them is in English. Gusfriend (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft article review
Hello and thank you for your review of Draft:Department of Homeland Security Outstanding Unit Award. I appreciate your comments and agree with them, and have edited the draft per your recommendations. If there's anything else I can do to get the article ready, please let me know. Thanks! Castawayed (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Findlay McRae (May 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Findlay McRae and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Findlay McRae, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Findlay_McRae Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Findlay_McRae reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Palatine Lodge No. 97
Hi Gusfriend, thank you again for reviewing my article. As per your suggestion, I have removed what I considered to be primary sources, I.e., those that link to the Palatine website. Also, I have removed those notable members which were also referenced by the website. I have left those members who are referenced by secondary references, i.e., Newspaper articles etc. But if you think these members should be removed then I will do so. I’d appreciate it if you could take a look at my revised draft. Thanks again Stev201961 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That is looking a lot better. Ideally you would only have people for whom there is mention of their membership in the newspaper report of their awards, obituary and the like but it is a little harder in the context of groups where all of the information may not have been fully public at the time. The advantage of the university records is that they provide a moderated location for original historical documents as opposed to a modern summary. With the university records they have placed their academic reputations on the fact they have the original documents. Gusfriend (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Gusfriend. Yes, all the Newspaper articles I’ve referenced, against the people who remain in the Notable Members section, mention the person and that they are members of Palatine Lodge. I can post an example if you wish. Stev201961 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just had a look at the page and it is looking good and ready for resubmission. Gusfriend (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, Gusfriend. Stev201961 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire
Hi @Gusfriend

I've responded to your comment in Draft talk:Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire. Thanks! Elias (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire
When you create new articles connected to the Byzantine Empire, could you remember to list them in the Index of Byzantine Empire–related articles? Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Your recent editing history at FIBA Men's World Ranking shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating Stubs
Hello @Gusfriend thank you for reviewing my AfC submission for Faye Toogood -- I am going to follow your advice and add more context, I do wonder tho: what is the minimum acceptable length for a "stub" article? I thought in the case of such a well known female designer who lacks a wikipedia entry, the first order of business would be to "right" the situation by giving her a page, and then work on improving it over time. That's why I meant to submit it ASAP as a stub. SleepyWhippet (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft Kargo Xpress - Submission Declined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kargo_Xpress

Hello Gusfriend. You declined our submission. Reason similar to below. I really dont understand why. I have seen other airlines with very much lesser reference is been approved. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Jet_Xpress_Airlines

Submission declined on 6 May 2022 by Rich Smith (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I have resubmitted with the following reference and yet it is declined again.

^ https://www.nst.com.my/business/2021/06/697323/m-jets-obtained-aoc-commence-cargo-flight-east-malaysia ^ "Kargo Xpress adds Hong Kong to its air freight network - Payload Asia". ^"Kargo Xpress Fleet Details and History". www.planespotters.net. ^ https://www.gecas.aero/2x738bcf_to_kargo-xpress/ ^ https://www.jetphotos.com/airline/Kargo%20Xpress ^ https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Kargo%20Xpress.htm ^ https://cargofacts.com/allposts/carriers/kargo-xpress-nears-launch-with-737-400f/ ^ https://www.caasint.com/kargo-xpress-implements-champs-cargospot-airline-solution/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunasekar Mariappan (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is best to avoid the argument that WP:OTHER things exist but to answer your question, your references really need to be associated with a piece of information, statement, sentence or paragraph rather than clumped together at the bottom. See WP:REFB. The other thing is that user generated content (i.e. Facebook, a blog or certain plainspotting sites) or information from a company itself aren't generally classified as reliable and need to be replaced by newspaper, magazine, etc. articles. Gusfriend (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Galip Ulsoy
Thanks for the fast review. I'll replace the refs to the CV. Not sure about the other issue: "the text in the first couple of paragraphs should be rewritten". Are you refering to the Early life and education sections? --Adig-pt (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Because the lead (i.e. before the Early life) is densely packed with information it is similar to some of the text in the text of the awards (which was likely provided by the researcher). It would be good to rewrite those sections so there is more of a difference. Looking at it now I would think that providing a bit more context would be a good way of doing it. i.e. Ulsoy is a roboticist from the UM and currently holds the emeritus positions of X and Y. For his work in Z has is a follow of the ASME, IEEE, etc. as well as a member of the NAE.
 * You still link the abreviations to the pages but it makes it a little less dense and tempts you to find out how great he is later on. Gusfriend (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have rewritten the lead and replaced most of the CV references (aside from those to his early education and family). Can you take a look? Adig-pt (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 👍 Adig-pt (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Seco Tools
Hi, you recently declined Draft:Seco Tools, and I don't know if you noticed (since they didn't ping you) but the creator has queried this on their talk page, so perhaps you could go and respond?

FWIW, IMO the creator has a point, in so far as the company being part of the Sandvik group, or not existing anymore (which isn't the case, AFAIK), aren't reasons to decline; also, saying that the draft doesn't have sufficient content to warrant its own article isn't quite correct, either (it looks Start class to me). Where I think you are right is that the sources are on the weak side, especially in what comes to establishing notability (there seems to be the assumption that as long as the sources are reliable, they are good enough, which obviously isn't the case), so in that sense I'm not disputing the decline, just the reasons given.

The fact that svwiki has an article on this company has, of course, no bearing on whether enwiki should, which you may wish to explain to the creator.

Anyway, that's me done poking my nose into your business! Over to you, to take forward as you see fit. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know and I will head over there now. I actually meant a merge into Sandvik but to be honest the merge was a secondary comment/option/thought compared to the main issue of the use of primary sources. Gusfriend (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Singshore Bridge, Pelling
Hi Gusfriend, could you check back on the comment you left on my draft? I've responded to your message on my talk page. Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Rather than being the one to assess it now I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to review it. Gusfriend (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So must I wait for someone to re-review? Dissoxciate (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Someone will probably look at it within the next day or so. Gusfriend (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

26-day review?
You may have left a draft marked as under reviewed for 26 days by accident. I have unmarked the draft to put in back into the queue. – robertsky (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I missed that one. Gusfriend (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Tara Clark
Please do not take my nomination of this article whose earlier draft you accepted as a criticism of your acceptance. We all have different opinions, and the community's opinions trump yours or mine.

As an AFC reviewer myself I choose to remain neutral at AfD discussions where I have accepted the draft. While I commend that route to you it is my personal preference to act in that manner, you may have different views. If wish to express an opinion please do so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Gusfriend. Just seconding @Timtrent's note here. Lots of gray areas in AfC and my personal opinion is this one could have gone either way, although I had some notability concerns. You did nothing wrong in accepting it and we'll see how it shakes out. Ping me if you need anything.  Star   Mississippi  20:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your messages. I agree with the policy of staying away from the AfD discussion in the same way that I generally don't conduct the review of AfCs that I have previously rejected. I will admit that it was a marginal approve and I have no trouble with the AfD being started for it. Gusfriend (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If pressed, I tag an AfD comment as Neutral and explain that I remain neutral on AFC acceptances of mine that go on to AfD. I sometimes explain it was a marginal decision (if it was) and that the community is a better judge than one reviewer.
 * I agree with not performing a second AFC review unless the circumstance are ones I view as special in some manner 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Neontenic
I wonder if you remember that this is under review still? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A mix of ReFill being overloaded and being a little off my game. Now fixed. Gusfriend (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:CBi Bank
Hello Gusfriend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:CBi Bank, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I do not think the draft is blatantly promotional. It merely states when the bank was founded. Yes, this will not be going to the mainspace any time soon, but G11 should be reserved for painfully obvious cases. . Thank you. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Gusfriend (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re-submission
Since I was not the original author or a major contributor of Draft:Exaly, I did not want to change the overall structure. I changed the two references to Exaly official website by available credible sources. However, just for my reference, as I checked similar pages I found it is a common practice in Wikipedia to reference the official website on some instances. Isn't it? I can give you tons of examples. MojoDiJi (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In an ideal situation everything that you want to include in the Wikipedia article has been mentioned in a newspaper article, tv news report, scientific paper, etc. For example if you wanted to write about the White House dog then there are enough articles without needing to rely on the White House web site. At the other end of the scale there is an article which only uses a company web site as a reference which will be removed fairly quickly. Then there are the cases in between where you have to look and see what you (i.e. the community) is willing to accept. In the case of Exaly my judgement was that it was just a little too close to the relying on their web site end of things. Anyway, if you resubmit it then someone will re-assess it for you. Gusfriend (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft submission declined
Hi Gustfriend, I wrote a new article about Rob Rokicki and you declined it for violating copyright rules. I don't believe it violates copywrite since I wrote it myself. Can you take a look at it again? Thanks! Sunshine-moonshine-0 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Resubmission of Draft:Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal
Hi, could you please reevaluate the draft? I believe it is now ready for mainspace.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Submission of Draft:Alexander Ostroumov declined on 1 June 2022
Hi Gusfriend, Thank you for your tips. I've cleaned up most of the "peacock terms" in the text. There are still some "peacock terms" but they belong to the references. The problem is that very little has been written about Ostroumov. Because of the catastrophic historical events, everything was destroyed and his professional activity remained completely unknown. The only two books (see the references!) that also report on Ostroumov are already written in a laudative tone. It's hard for me to end this by quoting from these sole sources. In doing so, I would falsify the intention of the authors. It would be a pity if the public could not find out about Ostroumov. I hope that my changes to the text will make the submission possible. If not yet, please give me further tips to achieve this. Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Rascanu (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have gone back to the page and made the first bits a little more neutral. I will submit it for someone else to approve later on after some more edits. Gusfriend (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gusfriend, I hope everything goes well. Dan Rascanu (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been resubmitted. You should feel free to change anything that you don't feel happy with. Gusfriend (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing your nomination of Easley High School for deletion
Hi GusFriend! Thanks for withdrawing Articles for deletion/Easley High School. I think it turns out to be quite notable; I keep finding more and more information. You may be interested in visiting The Wikipedia Library, where you can apply for access to a lot of source, the one I recommend most is access to newspapers.com. Jacona (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * here's a more direct link to free stuff at the library Jacona (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information. It is the first AfD I have had where there was such a large collection of information like that although I had been aware of Trove in the past. Gusfriend (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I almost always go to newspapers.com first in performing WP:BEFORE for an AfD on any American (and some European) articles, because there is so much there. It is fantastic, but it does expire annually. Newspaperarchive.com is good as well, but not as good. Jacona (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you so much for approving my article Murder of Joanne Witt. What an honor to have my first article not only approved, but done so quickly and then rated C Class! I can't thank you enough! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The article references 16 different articles from a mix of new providers with good use of in-line citations. The article goes into a good level of detail, the lead provides a good summary and there are no big WP:MOS issues. All in all that is exactly what we want in an article.
 * The only improvements that I can think of would be to add Template:Infobox event (with a photo) and if there are any paragraphs which lack in line citations to add them in. Gusfriend (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been looking for a photo, but the only ones come from the news stories and I don't know how to go about getting clearance to use one of those. I've looked at the process for getting photos on Wikimedia Commons and it seems like a PITA. If you're good at that sort of thing, please feel free to pull something from one of my sources and use it. That infobox looks perfect. Thanks for finding one that fits. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Do NOT accept articles without sources
What you did at List of bays of France is against the AFC rules saying that articles may only be accepted if they are cited to reliable sources (lists are no exception). If you've done that more than once, permissions should be revoked. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I have seen a number of list pages without and references and was mistaken as to consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. See WP:LISTVERIFY for current consensus on list sourcing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft Submission Declined
Hi Gusfriend,

I noticed you declined my recent draft of The Phillips Academy Poll. As someone new to Wikipedia, I'm a bit confused about how recency threatens the accuracy of the article. In some other pages I've updated, the references to election results are very recent because they must. Regarding notability, I've provided citations from NHPR, which is an NPR affiliate. FiveThirtyEight is also a subsidiary of ABC News, and coverage on their website indicates notability and reliability, especially in the polling world.

Please keep me updated, and I hope to continue learning about Wikipedia's policies.

Vergilreader (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Vergilreader


 * There is an essay at There is no deadline which talks about how there is no deadline for Wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with leaving things to mature a little. This can be as simple as allowing more information to come to light or time to allow more in depth reporting or to allow more real life activities to occur. For example, an article about a new group providing polling information ahead of anyone declaring their intention to run will be better after the primaries and better again after the election. You should feel free to resubmit at any time and I suspect that it would likely be approved at this point.
 * One word of warning though, some editors may be comment on the difference between the poll findings being published and the poll itself being discussed. Gusfriend (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Hello Gusfriend -- Just a quick note to say don't add the unreferenced tag to an article unless it has no sources at all, including in the form of external links. There are a lot of referencing templates that might apply, such as More footnotes needed (no inline references); see Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Request on 22:02:44, 7 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Account10swg39
Thank you so much for reviewing the article! As recommended, I have significantly cut the number of publications. I have made updates throughout as well to better reflect notability. The "Notability (academics)" guidelines states that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable": "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Sabbagh-Khoury has been awarded the H.G. Guggenheim's Distinguished Scholars Grant, the Fulbright award, the Israeli Council for Higher Education's Maof Scholarship, and an Israel Science Foundation postdoctoral award, among others. The article also demonstrates notability. For instance, Footnote 11 is a Washington Post article that quotes from Sabbagh-Khoury. Footnote 15 is a Hebrew article from the top Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which discusses in-depth Sabbagh-Khoury's research. Footnote 17, an academic article by the historian Gabriel Piterberg, discusses Sabbagh-Khoury's novel research agenda in-depth. Other footnotes link to talks Sabbagh-Khoury has been invited to give on her speciality.

I hope these suffice. Thank you!

Account10swg39 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Those changes have definitely improved the page. Rather than being the one to assess it now I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to review it as they can some to it with fresh eyes. Gusfriend (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Nick Mason also toured as the drummer for the band Tuff
At least in 2015 2601:40E:8100:9220:54D2:3741:AE0D:C6D8 (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please remove Alex Potanin (Computer Scientist) page?
Hello,

If general chair for major CS conference does not count the same as editor in chief for a major journal (given that CS relies on conferences not journals) then yes the article does not meet the criteria. Can you please delete the submission? Will look for other CS Australian academics with PL contributions. :)

Thanks! TwinCitiesToNJ (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Going through their CV I suspect that, given the number of papers, etc., they will satisfy the criteria in the future but they are not quite there yet. In this case and for the next one you are looking at a (very rough) rule of thumb would be that in Australia and NZ someone will probably need to be a Prof rather than A/Prof to meet the notability requirements as the things that will get you a promotion to Professor (apart from talking about your subject in the news) are about the same as the things that will give you notability for Wikipedia. One approach if you are looking for people is to look at all of the fellows of a society (List of learned societies in Australia)and check if they have a page.
 * There is nothing wrong with leaving the draft as is and it will be auto deleted in 6 months or there may be additional information that helps with notability. If you want the page deleted then just add to the page and it will be deleted within a day or so. Gusfriend (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

New message from Curbon7
Please see my comment at Draft:Madan Prajapat. Note that I'm just giving you a heads-up for future reference, I'm not chastising you or anything like that. Otherwise, keep up the good work Curbon7 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCORP and WP:GNG
Hi Gusfriend, the ANI discussion closed as I was writing a reply to your suggestion "it might be a good idea for them to get into the habit of saying WP:NCORP or WP:GNG rather than just referring to NCORP as both can be used for a company or organisation."

I was just going to note WP:SNG states, SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Also, in the WP:ORGCRIT guideline, it is noted, These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * fyi, the thread is open again, and I posted a reply to your comment there. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chronology of football on UK television
Hi, I see that you have declined Draft:Chronology of football on UK television on the grounds that it does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own. Whilst I don't totally agree with this, what is true is that the article is incomplete and should remain in draftspace. However I would not want it to be merged with my UK football timeline as at some point when this is complete I feel it would merit an article in its own right and am I able to state this somewhere within the article?

Therefore will the article remain in draftspace because if it does I can continue to cultivate it offline and when I think it is complete, and therefore ready for inclusion on Wikipedia, am I able to re-submit it? Rillington (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can resubmit it at any time although you would need to show how it is different from the Timeline page. Gusfriend (talk) Gusfriend (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you re: William J. LaVarre
I appreciate the help! I posted at the Teahouse per your suggestion. JRW03 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Take another look and see if I'm on the right track! Thank you! JRW03 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is looking a lot better and I would probably accept it now. You should feel free to resubmit it and see what a different AfC reviewer says (to keep things independent I try to avoid reviewing articles that I have previously declined). Gusfriend (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about Draft:D. C. Schindler
Thanks for reviewing my work on Draft:D. C. Schindler. Could you tell me more precisely how I can improve the inline citations? Are there too many unsupported assertions, or are the sources I have used inappropriate for some reason? Thanks for any clarification you can give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwight.lindley (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarification About Sources in Declined Draft Article
Hi Gusfriend,

My draft article for Megan Cornish was rejected due to not using "reliable sources." However, I believe that is a misconception. This article relies mostly on primary sources from Cornish and her colleagues gathered by the Labor Archives of Washington and the University of Washington Libraries. I processed and viewed the documents from the court cases she was involved in, housed at the Labor Archives of Washington, that I relied heavily on when crafting this article. Additionally, the YouTube videos that were marked as "unreliable" were part of an oral history collection from the University of Washington that interviewed Megan Cornish herself. There are also some secondary sources cited, which all came from a heavily researched academic project at the University of Washington called the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project. I implore you to please review the sources again and reconsider this article's submission.

Mathieulalie (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I should start by saying that you should feel free to resubmit the article at any time and it will be reviewed by someone else as I have already been involved it in. My concern with the YouTube videos was that, being interviews, they present the subjects perspective based on their recollections rather than being filtered through the analysis that comes from publishing an article about them however other reviewers may not have the same concern. One of the things that you will discover about Wikipedia is the way that different perspectives and opinions fit together to generate a rough consensus about the best option. I also wanted to wish you luck as this is clearly an article about someone who should be in Wikipedia. Gusfriend (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alberger process
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberger process. 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. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 09:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

referenced added
Hi, I addressed your decline reason for. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stchi (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

FB MSBS Grot
I'm not sure that supporting the edit warring done by IP 91.237.86.201 is a good idea, you filled in references to the articles which are in Polish, and I'm not quite sure you are aware of the fact that at this point the IP is breaking the 3RR rule in 24 hours. The IP keep doing this despite not gaining any consensus. Also, since the sources are in Polish, I'm not sure you are aware of the fact that what the IP has done was to create a text based on WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:Original research. You are encouraging bad behavior by going in and filling in the citation details, and blindly confirming sources you may not be able to read or understand they are not in English. --E-960 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to me running the tool WP:REFILL? I am not sure that I would categorise that as doing anything other than fixing bare references and combining references. Gusfriend (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are we running such tools when an editor is engaged in an edit war and the text they inserted is under scrutiny, and also an ANI case has been filed? It would have been more appropriate if you reverted those edits pending all those other discussions. --E-960 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, how to you suggest to run the RfC with the disputed text already in there I suppose, putting the cart before the horse I guess. --E-960 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For a RfC if the text is already there then you would do something like:
 * I propose replacing the section
 * This bit that I copied from the page
 * with the following text
 * How I would like it to be said
 * as I believe that that the existing text presents an overly negative perspective of reality. Gusfriend (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The better the text that you want it replaced by and the better the explanation of why you don't like the current version then the more likely you are to get consensus.Gusfriend (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also check out Requests_for_comment/Article_topics for some current examples. Gusfriend (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also check out Requests_for_comment/Article_topics for some current examples. Gusfriend (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, first off... the disputed content should not be in the article, there are clear rules on this, and I was being facetious when I asked about it, note BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also, what is the RfC going to be about in the first place, the synthesis and original research? The editor who keeps pushing this questionable text has up to this point misrepresented a number of sources, so what will this RfC accomplish other than provide a chance to WP:FORUMSHOP. The RfC is not an idea option. --E-960 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I like to assume good faith which is how I answered your question. Secondly, sometimes WP:BRD is not getting anywhere (including sometimes when people have a different view about who is being bold or if it devolves into an edit war). In this case it appears that getting consensus is proving problematic which is exactly where RfC can prove useful. Gusfriend (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD works exactly how it should, questionable editions are held back, and sometimes such edits should not be included at all. Also, I see that you started the RfC, and it's very apparent that you are not familiar with the issue, not only you summarized the article poorly, also since you are not a Polish speaker you have no access to more information on this issue. Finally, (and this is my main point) if there are barely any RELIABLE reference sources discussing this issue in the English language, why are you trying to add this information on English Wikipedia? So, pls consider WP:ONUS a concept highlighted on the articles talk page by an administrator El_C. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, you are also probably not aware or at least don't take into full account the public allegations made against Onet.pl who is owned by a German company that it purposely ran a hit piece about the rifle because it was becoming a competitor to the HK and other German manufacturers. You opened a RfC based on one English language reference source and you did not even summarize it properly. Also, did you notice the unusual editing patter of the IP and the three registered users Rzęsor was dormant since 2012 and only recently restarted editing in 2022. As I mentioned in the ANI these may be sock puppets, I'm not sure of that, however it maybe a legitimate concern of mine. I suspect what's going to happen is after this RfC they will still push to get their questionable POV into the article, and the "compromise" RfC will actually yield no compromise at all. --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Gusfriend, could I suggest that you withdraw the RfC. Unfortunately, just today the IP user again tried to add his disputed text back into the article, which earlier was re-added by user Rzęsor and was reverted both times by user Loafiewa. As I noted earlier, this compromise RfC will not solve the disruptive editing by the IP and his "supporters" and only added to the confusion. --E-960 (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

AfC submission
Hello again, A few months ago, you reviewed an AfC I submitted wanted to check if you have time to review another AfC. Appreciate your consideration. -- Chefmikesf (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernhard Landwehrmeyer submission
Hello Gusfriend, I reviewed the article you had reviewed. I addressed the reasons of rejection you raised: 1. Reliable sources were added; 2. "Prof." was deleted; 3. Excessive/redundant citing was removed. Kindly ask you to look at it again. -- Pippin2k (talk)
 * I have had a look and it is certainly better. As I have reviewed it in the past I will leave it up to another approver to review it. Gusfriend (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Alafia Samuels for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alafia Samuels, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Alafia Samuels until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Request on 12:45:53, 6 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by BarI2021
BarI2021 (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Western Railways of Cuba
Can you be more explicit about the reasons for the denial? Mandrake to. 2600:1702:1A70:2420:D033:7441:A4A3:BD1E (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It is unclear where you are getting the information for each bit of the text and you should use in line citations. I have tidied up the references to help with the process and suggest that you ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you want any help. You may want to consider merging your page to improve the history section of Ferrocarriles de Cuba. Gusfriend (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Double standard?
"The source" is a first party source so I figured it would count as reliable within the topic of LACMTA. Not to mention it already is a somewhat better article than the existing articles for the current and previous models such as the P2550 and P2000. So when they actually enter service sometime next year or so this would be a very good article. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I had originally declined the article based on the fact that it is a blog which means a lack of authority but in this case as it is the Metro blog the issue is that it is a primary source and most of the article relies upon it. At this point I would look and see what LA news sources are saying about it. Gusfriend (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sir Hercules Robert Langrishe, 5th Baronet
I have added inline citations, primarily to his Who was Who entry and his obituary. I cross checked some against Debrett's, whose entry is for the current Baronet, but contains information on his lineage, but did not cite it as a reference as it is not directly about the Sir Hercules Robert Langrishe. My motivation for creating an entry for the 5th Baronet is that the entry for Valhalla (steam yacht, 1892) incorrectly links a conversation Lord Crawford has with the 1st Baronet, who died in 1811, before Valhalla was built.Paladyn-john (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Brian R. Cheffins
Thanks for reviewing my draft entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brian_R._Cheffins

I have a single citation to 'Who's Who' for the birth date and location. I see that is a source which is doubted, however, I'm unsure how else one can cite that information? It seems to have been used extensively on some very prominent entries previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee#cite_note-whoswho-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#cite_note-whoswho-7 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair#cite_note-whoswho-4

Should I just remove the source? The entry doesn't really work without grounding the birth date and location? Given your experience as a reviewer, do you have any suggestions on a course of action? Db298 (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that having date and location is not an absolute requirement but with that sort of reference you can always leave it in and see what happens once it is in main space. Gusfriend (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability for Keith Pilbeam
Is the IJFE notable enough with a 1.634 impact factor and an ABS 3*? Hi3d 2 (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This table gives a better impression of the journal . I should mention that the counterpart to AfC is Articles for Deletion (i.e. AfD) and any article that is approved can be sent to AfD. My concern would be that someone would send it to AfD and then the debate would be help that. Having said that, the books appear to be used as textbooks which means that they have an impact in that way. If you can get some reviews of the books then he gets notability via WP:NAUTHOR and you don't have to worry about any of that. Gusfriend (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by reviews? Could you elaborate. Hi3d 2 (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Michael A. Elliott where their books have references with links to where people have published a review for them. Gusfriend (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

May I ask for a bit of assistance to find these reviews? Hi3d 2 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Also does that mean I have to take out the mentions of Keith being an Editor in Chief? Hi3d 2 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Leave it in there. I had an initial look for reviews without success. Looking at WP:PROF it looks like it should be even easier to meet criteria item 4a via references like this, this, this and this. There is even a custom version for the University of Amsterdam (see ). I would consider creating a section called "Books" or similar to separate them out and give them emphasis. Gusfriend (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, amazing. I will work on these and hope to get back to you soon, thank you for your help! Hi3d 2 (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, do you think Keith would also meet the guidelines for an economist; what type of reference would I need? Hi3d 2 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:PROF is the easiest of the notability guidelines to meet so as an academic economist that is what is mentioned above. Otherwise you would need to go with WP:GNG which would be harder to meet. Remember that there is only the need to meet one criteria. Gusfriend (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have amended the article and sent it for AfC, do you think it looks ready for publication? Hi3d 2 (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, perfect! Hi3d 2 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

List of 2020s films based on actual events moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, List of 2020s films based on actual events, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When all information in the article cites a reliable source, it can be moved to mainspace (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

RE: Declining for ilc
For future reference, ilc declination should only be used for WP:BLPs. Otherwise, if the subject is dead or isn't a person and there are sourcing issues, just slap it with a normal v. Keep up the great work! Curbon7 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of 2020s films based on actual events has been accepted
 List of 2020s films based on actual events, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=List_of_2020s_films_based_on_actual_events help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Dwaipayan (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Norbert Matsché
Thanks for reviewing my draft entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Norbert_Matsch%C3%A9. But you rejected article submission with the comment "Not clear that they meet WP:PROF." Up to my knpwledge biography of Norbert Matsché meets 5 point of the 8 of the Criteria. These are:

Crit.1.: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Research gate lists 32 Publications. 1,278 Reads, 287 Citations. This is probably a lot. See https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norbert-Matsche. If the link should not work, please contact me.

Crit.4.: The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Matsché holds / held 2 patents, see ref. 30 and 32.

Crit.5.: The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Matsché was appointed Professor of Chemistry and Biology of Water at the Institute for Water Quality and Waste Management (today: Institute for Water Quality and Resource Management) of TU Wien, a position he held until his retirement from active service on 30 September 2007. (see ref. 6: )

Crit.6.: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Matsche was member of numerous national and international relevant non-university organisations and scientific committees, e.g. member in the board of the Specialist Group on Design, Operation and Costs of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants of the International Water Association (IWA), (s. ref. 33 ).

Crit.8.: The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Matsché was editor of Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica (see ref. 41: ).

I made some additions concerning some references, but now I would say, my draft is ready to meet the criteria. So please inform me wether I'm right and my draft can be moved into the article space. Thank you for timely feedback and best regards, Hager Irene (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I will work through them one by one to avoid mess but my reasoning was basically:
 * For item 1, 32 publications and 287 citations means on average less than 10 per article and the most cited item is relatively low. For notability according to criteria I would expect higher numbers.
 * For item 4, that generally means something like helping setting up a national framework for accreditation, etc.
 * Item 6 generally means, vice-chancellor, Chancellor, President of the American Mathematical Society, etc. rather than being a board member of a sub-group of an organisation.
 * For professor it can sometimes be hard to judge the level and that was also the case with the editor of the books in the series.
 * Which meant for me that it was line ball and in retrospect I may have been a little harsh in declining it. My only other concern with the article is that it reads a little too much like a CV and my suggestion would be to write it with a more neutral POV then resubmit it and I would expect it to be approved. Gusfriend (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please help me with a short hint: What exactly is ment by "with a more neutral POV"? Where is the text not neutral? Thank you and best regards, Hager Irene (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are a few examples that I noticed:
 * Matsché's very extensive research activities also -> Matsché's research activities also
 * Matsché developed innovative and effective solutions -> Matsché developed solutions
 * Matsché has been and still is active -> Matsché is active
 * (IWA) should be mentioned -> (IWA)
 * plant personnel is very extensive and essential -> Something like Matsché was involved in developing training for plant personal
 * Basically try to make it sound as neutral as possible. You should also remove their first name when it is used after the first time. Gusfriend (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have edited the text again. Do you think it is now ready to be published? Hager Irene (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I won't be reviewing it as I have been involved in it previously but I think that it is suitable for submission. Gusfriend (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I resubmitted. Thanks a lot and best regards! Hager Irene (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Signature error
Looks like something went wrong with your signature at Requests for adminship/DatGuy (diff), as only the timestamp was inserted. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have fixed it. Gusfriend (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Michael_A._Dornheim_Award
Draft revised to remove copyvio ExxtraCrispy (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nimu Spacecat
Hello, as you rejected the submission from Draft, could you explain which criteria was used for rejecting that? as the subject acquired significant notability, as nominated for the Martín Fierro awards, and the gold button, and had significant coverage in independient media, including La Tercera and El Mercurio, si believe the subject is enough notable and the article has the enough references. If you don't believe the article is not enough relevant, please explain in a plausible way. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Braham Stevens
I read that your review of Draft:Braham Stevens is "in progress". But is it really? -- Hoary (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I had planned to approve it but there was too much of issue with references and got sidetracked editing. I am trying to unmark it as under review but I can't seem to get the page to work. Gusfriend (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * When I press Alt-Shift-1, I'm given the three regular options; perhaps you could press Alt-Shift-1 and then opt for "Decline". I'd be surprised if you had to remove the "in progress" template in order to decline (or in order to accept, but unfortunately this one is a clear "Decline"). -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was able to un mark it as under review but that is about all I can do as my browser really doesn't ;ole the page and I can only edit it by using the mobile URL. Gusfriend (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

GOCE September drive
Thanks for your enthusiasm, but you can't count the article you've already copyedited for the drive; it begins at midnight UTC tonight. Have fun and all the best,  Mini  apolis  13:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your AFC submission
Hey mate, fellow aussie here. Any reason you submitted this to AFC? You seem experienced enough, but happy to review anyway. I think the content is great, reckon it warrants its own article? Might be better to create a redirect under this name and then link back to Gobbo's article and a separate section with your content within. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I submitted it to AfC as I like getting the extra eyes on it before it enters mainspace. I haven't updated the page for a while so I am expecting that there are even more cases now and it will continue to grow. It was actually spun out of the Royal Commission page that I am working on at User:Gusfriend/Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants as the page was getting way too big. I suspect that we will end up with about 4 or 5 different Gobbo related pages in the end. Gusfriend (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anis Nagi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government College, Faisalabad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Kodema
There isn't significant sources on the battle due to other battles getting more attention and due to the media unwillingness to cover a battle that isn't in Ukraine's favor. ISW is consider somewhat of a reliable source even though they are bias towards Ukraine. please consider this message. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Vital GA Drive
The first ever Vital GA Drive by the WikiProject Vital Articles has begun. The drive aims to improve Coffee and Land to good article status within 45 days, from 1 September to 15 October 2022. The Vital GA Drive is WikiProject Vital Articles's first step at achieving its ambitious goal: all Vital articles achieving good article status by 2032.

You've received this message because your name is on WikiProject Vital Articles and WikiProject Vital Articles/30 kB drive. If your name only appear at the 30 kB drive page, you won't receive any more future messages from the WikiProject. If you don't want to receive such messages anymore, you can remove the template at the project's member list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pennant Hills Golf Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackbutt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The decline of "Draft:The first Saudi expansion of the Grand Mosque"
Why did you decline Draft:The first Saudi expansion of the Grand Mosque?

I did hard work on this. OsinAharasani12 (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There are no references in the article which is a requirement for all articles. See WP:REFB for help. Whilst not a reason behind my decline I suggest that you expand the corresponding section at Masjid al-Haram instead. Then when it reaches enough content it can be split off into a new article. Gusfriend (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I did it. OsinAharasani12 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will leave it to someone else to review as I have already been involved. Gusfriend (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. OsinAharasani12 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My signature
Hello Gus(friend). I'm following up here because I don't think it's remotely relevant to the ANI thread, but I sign my posts here with my first name, as people do in all forms of written communication across the English-speaking world. My username is my full name and I'd find it unusual and awkward to sign with my full name. I have done this for years without any objections and, as you say, the signature policy only requires that a user's signature "resembles" a username and link to their user page. Community consensus for this policy was confirmed in a recent, well-attended RfC. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have always viewed the signature as the same as an email footer or letterhead. If I wanted to use it as you suggested then I would do something like Gus -- Gusfriend (talk).
 * I have been editing for less than a year so I am relatively new and from that perspective having the displayed signature being different to the user name makes things just that little bit harder for newcomers (and even more experienced users sometimes). It means that when editors look at a talk page conversation and there is a disconnect between how the user may be referred to and how their signature is presented and the wrong person can end up being pinged. Each time that I go to someones talk page where there is a difference it is the same and I have to go back to make sure I ended up in the correct place.
 * As such, whilst it is supported by consensus, that does not mean that I think that it is a good idea. I would like to note that I have no problems with the use of colours or similar formatting. Gusfriend (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Change Agent
Why the decline. It's a summary of an important novel, from this list: List of biopunk works. Not done yet, like many I see on this list. JuanTamad (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There is only a single reference which, according to the in line reference is just a general comment. There are no supporting references for most of the text. Here are some reviews of the book to help you get started.
 * ,, , , and  Gusfriend (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

== Your submission at Articles for creation: Convictions affected by the actions of Nicola Gobbo (September 9) ==  Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarityfiend was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Convictions affected by the actions of Nicola Gobbo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Convictions_affected_by_the_actions_of_Nicola_Gobbo Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clarityfiend&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Convictions_affected_by_the_actions_of_Nicola_Gobbo reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, citations have been added and the article has been resubmitted for review and approval -- thanks! Seshamoon (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexander Ostroumov has been accepted
 Alexander Ostroumov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Alexander_Ostroumov help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles on Ukrainian dictionaries
Hi there -- just wanted to say thanks for your speedy review of Draft:List of Ukrainian dictionaries and Draft:Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language in 11 Volumes. I am working on getting the references (and other improvements) in order, and once I do, I will look forward to another chance at a review, if you can be so generous with your time. BTW I was once a WP contributor many year ago, so am familiar with the basics + am currently getting up to speed with modern practices and conventions. So your assistance in reviewing these drafts will be greatly appreciated. Orbita70 (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Request on 13:22:49, 14 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 189.122.101.250
Hello, can you please mention the words that you felt that were not in the neutral form? Thanks.

189.122.101.250 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Lines like While at IBM Research, she has led great R&D projects that resulted in First of a Kind, with business impact, with all IBM business units, and published notable scientific publications. which I would just remove, awarded with Research-A Accomplishment Award from IBM Research, the highest academic award for a Research Staff Member, an academic position which I would change to something like awarded with Research-A Accomplishment Award from IBM Research and Dr. Gatti de Bayser has published her work in the top AI Conferences.. Gusfriend (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Paterson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Civil Rights Trail (Landmarks Chart)
Greetings, again. I've attempted to communicate via the U.S. Civil Rights Trail talk page, to no avail. I've made a virtually unassailable case, with evidence, to justify adding the CRT landmarks chart. If you have a moment, please share your thoughts so I can proceed. Thanks. Danceswithedits (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nimu Spacecat
Hello,

I've asked about an explanation why you rejected the submition of the article, despiste the referencies I consider valid, so I disagree your rationale, and I require an answer for this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not responding sooner.
 * You are welcome to resubmit the article for approval at any time and I will not be reviewing it as I have previously done so.
 * As a WP:BLP the article needs inline citations. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs have no in line references.
 * YouTube is not considered a WP:RS (i.e. reliable source)
 * Being nominated for an award is generally not notable.
 * Under Milestones the only notable item is the Gold Creator Award which needs a reference. Gusfriend (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Blue Bush "Diasy"
Please use a bit more care when moving things into Mainspace, as you did with blue bush daisy, with a glaring misspelling. Thanks, Abductive  (reasoning) 00:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell
I've made up a list in my userspace, listing many of the pages that Doug has proudly listed in various places in their userspace. Would you like to take a look at it? I dunno if it's any good, or if you would be able to use it? Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that that is a great start. I am actually only intermittently editing for the next couple of weeks but here are a few things to add with respect to GA status. As part of the Good Article Review there has generally been a focus and discussion on WP:V so the issues around longest grain train ever and the like should be less of an issue.
 * Walter Hunt (inventor) - discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/Walter Hunt (inventor)/1
 * Mail chute - discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/Mail chute/1
 * Shelby Gem Factory - Currently being discussed at Good article reassessment/Shelby Gem Factory/1
 * Haskelite - Haskell canoe merged into article. Discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/Haskelite/1
 * Southern Railway's Spencer Shops - discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/Southern Railway's Spencer Shops/1
 * Kitch-iti-kipi - Discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/Kitch-iti-kipi/1 with unreliable sources
 * Buckeye Manufacturing Company - discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/Buckeye Manufacturing Company/1 information does not match related articles. Issues with WP:V.
 * Henry Ludington - discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/Henry Ludington/1. Extensive use of non WP:RS. Tempting to remove about 60-70% of the text and go from there.
 * New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 - discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999/1. Factual accuracy is reasonable now but needs additional recent references.
 * North Carolina Transportation Museum - discussed and delisted at Good article reassessment/North Carolina Transportation Museum/1. Distinct lack of references.
 * SS John Sherman - A bunch of WP:UNDUE concentrating on link with C&O ferry service when it was only hired by the railroad company for a single season. Details at Talk:SS John Sherman but there are now sources showing link between the ship and USCGC Sherman meaning that there is a whole lot of missing information (and the talk page is full or WP:OR. I plan to do a major rewrite in a couple of weeks.
 * Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation and Haskell Manufacturing Company and Carrom Company contain a mix of contradictory information. I plan a merge if only in the hope of making it all make sense.
 * William Buchanan (locomotive designer) has had most of the factual issues resolved.
 * I hope that these notes are a help.
 * Gusfriend (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots: RFC on Regnal Number in Infobox
I see that you closed this RFC as "The numbers are approximately equal so there is no consensus to include the regnal number at the top of the infobox." However, this means there is also no consensus to exclude it, thus no justification for removing it - it's already in many other articles and has been for many years. Deb (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My reading of the talk page RfC was that it was to add the number to a page that did not have it based on:
 * The fact that it continued on from the discussion at Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots which started when someone added the number and it was reverted.
 * The first person in the survey stating that it is not in the infobox.
 * The fact that the article did not have the number there prior to opening the RfC.
 * As there was no consensus then the status quo (i.e. not having it in the page) is kept per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I would also like to note that a RfC at the relevant MOS or the Village Pump would be the best way to achieve consistency across multiple articles. Having said all of that please feel free to initiate a closure review. Gusfriend (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure of RfC on Denials
Hey Gusfriend. I'd like to challenge your of the RfC on Denials. WP:DETCON tells us that Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. and WP:CLOSE states that Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes and the closer must read the arguments presented.

Your closure is pretty short, only two sentences with the second being implementation notes. In your closure you state that There is a clear consensus for the page to include option 1...as it received more !votes than everything else combined. When reading the closure against both the DETCON policy and CLOSE information page I've linked above, you've made no mention of how you ascertained the relative strengths of the arguments as viewed through policy. I was hoping if you could clarify if your closure was entirely based on numeric distribution of the !votes, or if you made any determination of the various policy points raised by all sides of that discussion. If however your closure was entirely based on the number of !votes, and no assessment of the arguments presented was undertaken, I would request that you undo the closure and relist it for needing closure. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to apologise for the brevity of the closure. Unfortunately I was not at my oratorical best when I closed the discussion and after 5-10 minutes couldn't think of a phrasing that didn't sound condescending so I left it out.
 * I did review the different comments through the prism of Wikipedia policies rather than just count responses. When reading through the comments I was struck by the fact that options 1-3 were, essentially, functionally equivalent once other Wikipedia policies were taken into account. This was noted by several people including statements that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are core content policies and are explicitly stated at the top of the page as well as the discussions about balance. Consequently, it came down to how explicit the community wanted the statement to be and overall the consensus appeared to be to go for something brief with the understanding that this did not overwrite Wikipedia policies. As such, if I were to close it now I would say something like:
 * At this time there appears to be a consensus for option 1 and it should be added to the page. It is important to note that this text, and indeed the whole document, must be seen through the prism of the core content policies including WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR (including the sections WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE) which are already mentioned at the top of the page.
 * I hope that that helps and I am sorry for not being more explicit at the time of closure. Having said that, I would have no concerns if you were to request a closure review. Gusfriend (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While that is a slight improvement, as it refers back to the core content policies, as an editor who was involved in the RfC discussion it does not seem like a full description of the discussion.
 * Unfortunately I'm recovering from laser eye surgery (pew pew, alas no x-ray vision) at the moment, so my screen time is limited. Could you please self-request a closure review at a WP:AN? I think given the ramifications of changing this policy and how its interpreted, and the impact it will have on the many BLPs across enwiki, closure of that RfC ideally should be done by an uninvolved administrator. Or someone intimately familiar with all of the core policies involved and how those are broadly interpreted and agreed upon by the community at large. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Blogs are not reliable sources"
Regarding your comment at Draft:Atlas Intelligence Group (A.I.G), it's not true that blogs aren't considered reliable (at least as a blanket statement). Please see WP:BLOGS. I've not looked at any of the sources being used in the article and it might be that they're unreliable, but blogs can be considered reliable in some circumstances. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was not as precise as I should have been and I have adjusted the message. Gusfriend (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Write a article about (A.I.G)
Hi i wanna ask for help to write and publish a article about the Threat group Atlas Intelligence group.

we would appreciate any help. 2A0A:A546:E4D6:0:F91C:DC22:5A73:C150 (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The best place to get help with a new article or other questions is to ask at the Teahouse.
 * Gusfriend (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Help with this list database thing.
You may have noticed me pop up on the Exmor Talk - as a result of the rfc.

I'm new to this and I didn't want to clutter the discussion with ill informed contributions, hence this request.

Can you help me understand what is the issue (I understand the sourcing issue but that apparently is now accepted) with the list of stuff some would like to see in the article... and this type of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Directories_and_indexes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Technology_and_applied_sciences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_processors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

Would it be acceptable for them to make a list in these sorts of areas and link to it?

If the issue is readability could not the 'list' just be collapsable?

Thanks in anticipation. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that it comes down to the noteworthiness (which is less than requiring notability) of the information in any list. For example with AMD and Intel CPU models there is technical information providing context and then individual independent articles on the CPUs where they run benchmarks, talk about them in depth, etc. In fact many of the items in such lists have pages for themselves or the product family.
 * With the Exmor sensors I could easily imagine that there are less than a dozen noteworthy items on such a list which would work as an expanded "Versions" section. The Expeed page is a good example of grouping related series of chips into sections. I hope that that helps.
 * Gusfriend (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I think I get it now. Thanks for taking the time.
 * So it wouldn't be appropriate to have that information Here ?
 * If that is the case is there a way that the proponents of the list could host it somewhere and have a link to it in the article.
 * As in (off the top of my head).....
 * The Exmor sensor enthusiasts maintain an information page on a variety of Exmor sensors. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that either on the Sony page in the camera wiki or a stand alone page which would allow other non Sony cameras to link to it. And I think that a link in "External links" would be good and appropriate. Gusfriend (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great. Would you like to make that suggestion in the Exmor talk page (because you will explain what is acceptable far better than I).
 * I'd be happy to but I'd just be parroting you and wouldn't be able to give more detail if required*.
 * I really appreciate your time on this.
 * Hopefully it might end the issue on Exmor but even if it doesn't you have also provided some useful mentoring to me.
 * If I did add to the talk I'd say:
 * Having sought further and better information on the reasons the experienced editors here are not happy to have this type of list in this article I understand and agree the point.
 * What is the difference between other 'lists' and this list?
 * The short answer is that it comes down to the noteworthiness (which is less than requiring notability) of the information in any list. For example with AMD and Intel CPU models there is technical information providing context and then individual independent articles on the CPUs where they run benchmarks, talk about them in depth, etc. In fact many of the items in such lists have pages for themselves or the product family.
 * With the Exmor sensors I could easily imagine that there are less than a dozen noteworthy items on such a list which would work as an expanded "Versions" section. The Expeed page is a good example of grouping related series of chips into sections. I hope that that helps.
 * We are here to attempt to achieve consensus and it would be good to find a method by which you could achieve your goal
 * You could find a home for your list either on the Sony page in the camera wik,i or a stand alone page, which would allow other non Sony cameras to link to it. A link in "External links" on the Exmor article would be acceptable and appropriate. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Gusfriend!


Happy New Year! Gusfriend, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Findlay McRae (January 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by EchidnaLives was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Findlay McRae and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Findlay_McRae Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EchidnaLives&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Findlay_McRae reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

echidnaLives -  talk  -  edits  05:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

2023
Thank you for a good close for Tchaikovsky. I do hope we'll get the former conflict to normal editing. - The colours of my January calendar image are Ukrainian for a reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

today, I point at two singers I whose performance I enjoyed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ava Max
Hi. Nationality at the Ava Max article has been changed again. As I saw you once reverted to stable one, could you do it again? I would do it by myself but the article is semi-protected and I joined yesterday, so I would appreciate you doing it for me. Thank you in advance. AnotherUserThere (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.105.244 (talk)


 * ^^^This is block evasion by User:Dealer07. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hywel Thomas
Hello, Gusfriend. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hywel Thomas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Cite format change
Please read WP:CITEVAR and revert your edits changing the cites to sfn format for this article. I've already reverted your improper edits to Malaya. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I missed the section about changing from plain text to using a template. I have fixed the Valiant article. Gusfriend (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hywel Thomas


Hello, Gusfriend. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hywel Thomas".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Good Article" that was exclusively referenced by about 30 maps with no non-map references
I'm curious, what is the "Good Article" that was exclusively referenced by about 30 maps with no non-map references you reference at the pump? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I will admit that I was going from memory and there are 17 maps supporting it currently. The article is U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina) and there was an extensive discussion at Good article reassessment/U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)/1 before it was delisted. The closer referenced maps and OR in their closure reasoning. Gusfriend (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Findlay McRae
Hello, Gusfriend. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Findlay McRae, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Findlay McRae


Hello, Gusfriend. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Findlay McRae".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)