User talk:Johannes Maximilian/Archives 2023/September

Münster Hauptbahnhof
The update looks good, although why aren't you using the Citation template? Anyway, ramblings like this is probably not the best idea (save it as a Word file or post it somewhere else), because it still shows that you are not really getting the point of the scope of the topic ban being intentionally wide was to stop you from "clarifying" (read: wikilawyer) the scope in a very disruptive manner. But anyway, you are a smart and knowledgeable editor, so I have a challenge for you. I am thinking about going for my first GA, but I am not sure what to write about. If you have an uncontroversial subject that you want to write about, we can write it together and submit it for GAR. I think if you can accomplish an GA here uncontroversially, your next topic ban appeal (if that happens, I will probably be even willing to appeal for you) should go far more smoothly. What do you think? Alex Shih (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Alex, I am just not used to using the tl-template; in the German language Wikipedia, a similar template exists but using it is pretty useless since it just renders the text in the edit box unreadable and not many editors use the references tags correctly, so it has caused a bit of what you could call "annoyance"; I don't like using it, so I haven't even looked for a similar template here in the first place. But if editors here consider not using it undesirable, I guess I will start using it. Regarding the "nothing to see here"-page: It was a stupid idea to create that page in the first place; please go ahead and delete it. I appreciate that you consider me a smart and knowledgabe editor and I am happy to assist you with your first GA. I have created several good and featured articles for the German language Wikipedia (de:Mercedes-Benz OM 138, de:4 VD 14,5/12-1 SRW, de:Unimog 406, de:Unimog 411; also, I have improved the de:Dieselmotor article so it would eventually become a GA, but I haven't had the time to put effort into improving it further and it is stuck in the review (yellow wrench icon)). Please keep in mind that writing a GA can take up to several months. However, I have no idea what to write about in the English language Wikipedia. Maybe I seem like a knowledgable person, but, I guess all I know about is sort of related to engineering subjects. The German featured article Unimog 406 is a translation of an article I had initially written in English. Well, I guess another topic would be a much better option. To be honest, I have no clue what you use to write about since I never looked through your edits. I know a lot about internal combustion engines, Diesel engines in particular, German railway service; I can help with anything regarding German; I know how to acquire several books and I have a library in reach; as you know, I just finished the first draft of an article on air-blast injection, though, I don't really know where to start with a new GA. I have also seen several articles that might need an improvement; for instance, the section "Legacy" of the Rudolf Diesel article seems like 95 % original research. So, do you have any suggestions? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Rudolf Diesel looks fascinating, I actually had no clue about the origin of the word diesel. I am going to watchlist the page and see if I can work on it in the coming weeks. Alex Shih (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Viele Grusessen. I had a look at your en:Diesel article- and you are very brave to try (English humour- this is a double meaning- brave, and as a euphemism for foolish!). These articles are so important and so neglected and so difficult. I added multple maintenance tags to the history- then started to read the text. It will be improved by adding wlinks (wiki links- or hyperlinks). WP is supposed to be understood by a general educated reader- links back on basic terms are essential. There is a lot of work here. I can help a little- just contact me on my talk page or pop along to the | London Meetup ClemRutter (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, User:ClemRutter, for your advice! When I was a child, I was taught many English idioms, and I am a very experienced German language Wikipedia editor . It's just the little irks and quirks that I encounter on English Wikipedia that make editing a bit difficult. I know that the articels are supposed to be understood by the general educated reader, but that term varies, depending on the country you live in. I was raised in Germany, but I now live in Austria and Hungary, and there are even huge differences between Austria and Germany, and these two countries share a lot of their culture. I was a bit concerned because in both Austria and Hungary, the Newton metre is a unit of both torque and work/energy. However, after reading the English article, it rather seems to me like it is understood a bit differently in English. And this made me ask for advice. This is not the first time I work on an article like the Diesel engine article; just take a look at the de:Dieselmotor article. I was both praised and criticised for overhauling it, but it ended up becoming the German equivalent of GA (Lesenswert). The maintenance tags made me take a closer look at the :en:Diesel engine article, and I am still working on it. I reckon the general problem there may be different ways of describing basically the same thing. In general, I want to add proper sources to the article, but that also forces me to remove sections that are not covered by these sources. Many things I encounter seem to be factually correct, but there is so much information weirdly put together, spread in many sections and blown up unnecessarily. The information on the injection system shouldn't be in the fuel section, for instance. Best regards, and once again, thank you for your friendly message, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Post Scriptum: I had not taken a look at the article before composing my reply; as you might have realised, I am working through the Diesel engine aricle's sections from top to bottom; however, after fixing the 19th Century part of the history section, I noticed many questionable entries, in fact so many of them, that I still have to find a proper timeline in one of my books (and I know there is one, I have seen one before, I just need to find that book). There is no doubt that entries such as "company xyz brought the revolutionary product abc to market have the nature of an advertisement, which is why they have to go. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Air-blast injection
Hi. While doing new page patrol I saw you'd created an article at Air-blast injection. I am guessing from the all German sources and poking around that you translated it from one or more articles on German Wikipedia. While this is certainly allowed you might not be aware that the license still says you need to attribute where you got the text from. Since it seems to be from more than one article I did not attempt to note this on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Barkeep49, the article is not a translation from one or more German articles, instead, I have re-written the entire article from scratch using the same sources I had already used for the corresponding article in German (I am also the main author of the German article). Since I am the author of both articles, the style might be similar. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. That explains the differences while being overall similar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Re
Glad to see you back. There is a lot of work to do :-) Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Identification questions
Are you able, please, to tell me in more detail what these photographs are of? Forty years ago I would simply have asked my father but these days ... alas. Typ Nr., Bj. (umgefaehr), Motor size/power (cc/PS) ... But I am more interested in what you (easily) CAN tell me than in a list of "?"s

If the question is not easy for you, please do not take too much time for it. But I hoped maybe a difficult question for me might be a very easy question for you. The only certain thing was/is if that I do not ask you, I will never know whether you are able (and willing) to help with this.

Thank you "im Voraus". Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Charles,
 * Indeed, it is not too difficult. The lorry is most likely a Mercedes-Benz L 311 or L 312, built from 1949-1961, has a 4.58 litre, straight-six, precombustion chamber engine, producing either 90 (before 1956) or 100 PS (1956 and later). This lorry was very common in Germany and known as the 90er-Mercedes. Pre-1955 models were named after their payload, respectively L 4500 (L 312) or L 3250 / L 3500 (L 311). The one you have taken a photo of looks like a "special model": It has a split windscreen and a double cab. As far as I know, these were made by third-party manufacturers, especially fire engines have a double cab and split windscreen. The tractor is either a Hanomag R455 ATK or R460 ATK (the difference between these two models is a modification of the injection pump speed governor, otherwise they are exactly the same). The R455 ATK was built from 1957-1960, the R460 from 1960-1964. They are both heavy duty tractors with a Voith hydraulic clutch (Turbo clutch), hence the suffix ATK (A = air-filled tyres, TK = Turbokupplung). The engine is a 5.7 litre, straight-four, precombustion chamber engine, producing either 55 or 60 PS. Both 5 and 10-speed gearboxes were available.
 * I hope this is what you were looking for, best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I want to add your summaries to the image files - already have for the Hanomag. Please tell me if you object and I will of course remove them: but I think/hope you will not (object)! Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Of course I don't object, please go ahead and add my summaries to your photos. I searched the Daimler-Archive, and I found this press release: Maybe this is of interest. Best wishes, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Identification 2
Thank you again. Your reward(?) is that I have dug more deeply and found four more pictures about which I would welcome more details. Half of me says I should not upload pictures to wikipedia till I know (more or less) what they are of. But the other half of me knows that the best way to learn more is to upload them anyway and then ask for help. It often works with cars. Now also with tractors. As before, I am interested in what you can easily tell me. Please do not interrupt the day job to answer questions you cannot easily answer. But I am confident that for at least two of these you can easily give me details on engine size and power, model type etc. I am confident that you cannot know less about any of them than I do. Many thanks in anticipation of any details you will provide. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Charles, again, you are welcome. Childhood memories :-) The tractor is an earlier Porsche-Diesel Standard, maybe a Standard Star, it definitely has a longer wheelbase (with an "in between frame"), the front wheels are not original, the indicators are aftermarket parts, as well as the roll bar (and the flashing beacon "panic lights"). If I had to guess, I'd say it's a Standard Star 219, but I am not 100 % sure. The Standard Star 219 has a 1.75 litre, two-cylinder, swirl chamber Diesel engine, producing 30 PS. Unfortunately, I have no idea about the Latil. The grey tractor is a Pampa T01, mostly referred to as the Pampa, a legal Argentinian version of the Lanz Bulldog D1506, built in the 1950s under licence by Industrias Aeronáuticas y Mecánicas del Estado. It has a 10.3 litre Akroyd engine (hot bulb engine, two-stroke), producing either 55 or 60 PS. Increasing power output is really easy because these engines produce a ton of torque; it is very likely that the actual power output is much higher. The gearbox of the Pampa is a 3×2 speed gearbox, and it even has a reverse gear (early Lanz Bulldogs did not have a reverse gear because the two stroke engine does not have a fixed direction of rotation). I am sure that this Pampa was repainted, the original paint colour is orange. The blue lorry is a second generation Opel Blitz, built from 1952–1960. The second generation was rather an optical overhaul of the first generation, technically, the second generation Opel Blitz is pretty much still based on the original 1930 Opel Blitz, however, with an increased payload of 1750 kg (later 2000 kg). It has a 2.5 litre straight-six Otto engine (petrol engine) producing 58 PS. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks.  As before, I intend to copy or paraphrase your information as notes on the different image files on wiki-commons (unless you object).   I did not expect that you would know much about the Latil.   No one else does either!   But if I don's ask ....   Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, go ahead. And maybe, the French tractor is a Latil Traulier. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thank you for your correction of my edits on Overhead valve engine. That looks better.72.0.146.42 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are welcome! Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Diesel engine
You've done very good work on this article. I've only had time for a cursory skimming through, but have noted a few things to start.

The lead section is overly detailed, and someone without background knowledge might be confused by some of the technical details. I don't think it's necessary to mention Rudolf Diesel in the lead (it seems out of place in the paragraph), and going into depth about where the fuel is injected, type of air/fuel mixture, diffusion flame, etc. should be left to the section on operating principle. The in-depth technical details disrupt the flow of the prose as well, and partially repeat themselves in a couple places.

The first sentence under "The first diesel engine" doesn't quite make sense to me - it seems like there's missing background information (who is Krupp, what is the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg, how "could" he convince them?). There's other grammatical issues but nothing else major that I've noticed so far.

The "Types" section is difficult, in my opinion. Much of that might be better described in prose. It may be better to explain how each of those classifications pertains to an engine application (passenger car, commercial truck, tractor, ship, etc.) rather than the opposite. Power outputs and bore sizes alone mean little to the average reader, but "Diesels used in passenger cars are typically..." provides greater context.

Is capitalizing "Diesel" when referring to the engine (as opposed to its inventor) a British English variation? I normally don't see it capitalized.

The article appears to be complete and well-referenced, with a logical structure. It's certainly on the cusp of B-class if not already there and shouldn't take too much additional work to make it a Good Article. Consider requesting a WP:Peer review for it to get broader input from editors outside the automotive subject area.

Again, good work. --Sable232 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Sable232, thank you for your message. I reckon that either explaining how the Diesel engine works in just a few sentences, or summing up major points of it is the key in this case. I have chosen the former. I agree that it is not very easy to understand, but on the other hand, I believe that it is required to explain it in that detail. There is a lot of confusion regarding the Diesel engine, and simply referring to it as a "compression ignition engine" is not very precise – the Diesel engine is a CI engine, but not all CI engines are Diesel engines. Therefore, explaining what a Diesel engine is in that amount of detail seems reasonable to me – but I understand your concerns and I wish it was possible to avoid that wall of text. Now, the latter, summing up the major points, is an alternative, but I fear that it does not quite express what I'd like to see in the lead section.
 * The section "The first Diesel engine" was in fact difficult to understand, I have tried to fix it. Krupp is a German steel producer, and the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg was an Augsburg machine factory; they are now known as MAN. I know that my grammar is not perfect; I make a lot of punctuation errors, for instance.
 * When I started overhauling the article, I figured quickly that the article had a good structure with minor flaws; the "types" and "applications" sections are very similar, thus I considered merging them, but I have not done that yet. Either of the two is a fifth wheel. So I will see what I can do about it.
 * Capitalising Diesel in Diesel engine seems to be correct. After all, it makes sense, as names always begin with a majuscule. I have seen it capitalised in several (English language) books.
 * Regarding the books: As you have seen, I have used German language literature. Most of the German books are also available in English, however, there is a notable "translation delay", and thus I have decided to use the German editions – they are more up to date. Thank you and best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You pretty much decimated the Diesel history portion of the page. That title is Diesel engine not Diesel the man. You completely refuse to admit there were others before Diesel who contributed greatly to this engine. I have no idea why you refuse to familiarize yourself with the history? Are you so pompous that you think you already know everything there is to know on the subject? Or are you just a hard headed patriot who believes no one but the Germans invented the internal combustion engine? You seem reasonably smart so I imagine you could take a few minutes and see your errors. Imotorhead64 (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

IP block exemption

 * Check your email for me to consider. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. To summarize my email response: this account is not affected by an auto block. IPBE therefore is unneccessary and you can edit without issue currently. The IP you gave is part of a range block and unfortunately an individual IP cannot be exempted. I mentioned discussing with the blocking admin as an option, but noted that it would unlikely result in a change to the range block as it seems to be proper to prevent abuse. I also mentioned considering legitimate use of another account to edit from. I hope this addresses most of the issues. N.J.A.  &#124; talk  14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for reviewing my sandbox, and thanks for your changes! I would ask if you have a special suggestion for me or something else to improve it, i would highly appreciate it! Best regards, Enivak (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"The editor looks for areas where drama and friction occur"
I don't know if you were aware, but the remark you agreed with here was not based on a careful and sober assessment of Andy's contributions. The editor has been hounding me for the last few months, and only showed up where and when he did to harass me, so saying you "agree" is not helpful. I don't know if I have ever interacted with you before: I'm assuming this was a good-faith misunderstanding on your part, and you were there purely to compliment Andy, but if that is the case it might be a good idea to do so in a different manner than you have. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Stupid-ass inferences
Johannes, I saw your conversation on Charles01's talkpage but I have been stuck in those webs before so I thought I'd respond here. As used in your example, "stupid-ass" in American English is indeed just an adjective, like "blöder". Here is a very unclear explanation and here's a few more.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  01:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! That helped me a lot. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ping me here if I can help over in the German wikispace. My German is limited but I did win a Schiedsgericht over there once...  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I very much appreciate that! Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Unimog identification questions
Your talk page reminds me of a couple of questions that have been tickling away at the back of my mind...

Might I ask for a more comprehensive definition for these two than I have yet achieved, please? (We don't get too many Unimogs here in England.)  Many thanks im Voraus. And best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Charles! The green one is very likely a 1974 Unimog 406 (type 406.121, model U 84) (it doesn't have the upgraded step), however, due to many aftermarket modifications, I cannot tell for sure without inspecting that vehicle in person, but I am pretty sure. What I can say for sure that it is a post 1970 406 (rear windows) and a pre 1979 406 (grille). The engine used in the 406 is a 5.7 litre OM 353 diesel engine (62 kW). The darker, green-greyish one is a an Unimog 404 (type 404.114, model U 82), but I cannot say when it was made, since the annual changes were very minimal with the 404 series, and Daimler-Benz made more than 50,000 units of the type 404.114. It should have a 2.2 litre M 180 engine (60 kW). But again, I cannot tell for sure, and there were some exceptions. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I no longer remember if I thanked you for this before.  If I didn't - even if I did - thank you.   Best wishes.   Be well.   Charles01 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A friendly reminder re Unimog 435
Re Unimog 435: Please remember that in English one uses a decimal period or point, not a comma. Peter Horn User talk 18:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Peter, I am well aware of this, however, I often confuse these things. With newer articles of mine, you are very likely to not encounter any of these mistakes (since I check for these things several times). Please note that the Unimog article is more than four years old. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Electrohydraulic manual transmission
Hello Johannes,

I'm just messaging to inquire if you could help out and edit the Electrohydraulic manual transmission article, particularly with descriptive information... From 1292simon's talk page, it seems like you have a lot of useful knowledge and expertise in the internal mechanical operating systems of automotive transmissions, especially the electrical and hydraulic components, and systems. 1292simon and I are currently editing and expanding the Electrohydraulic manual transmission page, just to improve it and make it better, by elaborating and adding more description and factual information and hard facts to it. Your knowledge of the mechanical and electric components of the transmissions would be very useful in the article! If you have any other useful or factual information relevant to this article, then please don't hesitate to add it. Please go ahead and add any good information you have, it would be much appreciated and very valued! From the chat page, you seem very knowledgable in this specific field and area. Thanks for helping. Kind Regards, Davism0703 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Davism0703, I have got a book on transmissions, gearboxes etc. that I can use a source, I will have a look at it in the upcoming days. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow Johannes, that sounds fantastic! A good book on transmissions and gearboxes would be a great source of information, we really need it for this article! Thank you for helping, your help is much appreciated. Davism0703 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Johannes. How are you doing? I hope you are going well. I'm just touching base here about the highly useful information you had in your book, about Automated manual transmissions. That information would still be a great addition to the article. Just wondering if you're still thinking about adding it. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Davism0703 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Davism0703, I apologise for not replying in detail sooner, but I've been busy recently. I have now composed a long reply and put it onto Talk:Automated manual transmission. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Corps" - singular or plural
Hi, Johannes, I guess it depends. In English, "corps" is a collective noun, that is true. But in our usage, it is conjugated in the singular, eg, "The Marine Corps is a division of the United States Navy". British usage might apply the plural, I suppose. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually we Brits also use singular https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/corps-of-royal-engineers/ Chidgk1 (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Porsche Carrera GT
Hi, could you please explain the reason for your edit. Yours sincerely.--AutomobilePassion (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, you had already attempted to change the infobox picture last December – back then, this was opposed by several editors, and consensus was not to use your picture. Waiting for 11 months and doing the exact same thing (putting the picture back into the infobox) with the exact same edit comment ("better angle", which by the way has already met at least one editor's disapproval) is not how Wikipedia edits are supposed to be made. I'm assuming this was a good faith edit of yours (I have also made similar edits by accident because I had forgot about the consensus), but please be more careful. You should also be careful with your pictures on Commons – apparently, you have only uploaded pictures taken by French photographer Alexandre Prévot, and you have chosen the CC-BY-SA 2.0 licence for most of these pics. However, these pictures are currently not published under this licence. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Car photos etc
Hi Johnny, I have been taking your comments to heart and am trying to get a touch more of the frontal aspect of the car in my photos. Saw a lovely Lancia the other day (about as common as seeing a Hupmobile in Austria, I think) but a truck blocked me from where I would have liked to stand. I was forced to take one shot which I think is too much from the side, and one which has too much front in it. My question is, which is better? It would be nice for me to have a consensus on this matter as I mainly photograph to depict the car as clearly and as usefully as possible.

Anyhow, just wanted you to know that even in 2020 humans can still listen, even on the internet! Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Choppers, I am currently rather busy in real life, so I don't have too much time; I like the picture that you've labelled "too much front" better. I'm only seeing this on my phone though, and my personal taste is just what I think is best (and I'm just one out of many Wikipedians). I personally think that it's difficult to take a car picture with a full format 35 mm camera with a 50 mm lens from where you stood; I find it much easier to either step back a bit, or just use a different lens. I like the 70–210 mm lens the most for my 35 mm camera, at around 85 mm it gives decent results (I use the stock canon lens); I also have a cheap 28-70 mm wide angle lens, and well, sometimes it's fine, but I prefer the 70-210 nonetheless. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Lovely car and a nice shade of green which I don't remember from when they actually made them.  Your existing and otherwise rather good picture of a white Fulvia Coupe suffers from having a background that is ... um ... also more or less white.   For what it's worth, I would prefer this picture if you had stood half way between the two places where you stood, but one really only sees that when one gets home and sees what picture(s) one ended up with.   And I would prefer it if you had bent down a little more, say to about 1,2 - 1,5 m.,  so as to reduce the brutal diagonal slope of the botton/side - especially in the shot which is more of a side shot.   But that's only if you ask me.   Which I appreciate you didn't.   Sorry.   Be well, both, anyway.  Charles01 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * „I would prefer this picture if you had stood half way between the two places where you stood“ → I agree with that. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes on positioning, but that's where the UPS truck was parked though... I was hugging the truck from either side to get even this close to my preferred location! As for the white Fulvia I photographed, it is a Series I so they might both be useful. Anyhow, I will definitely show more front from now on. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Single-cylinder engines


A tag has been placed on Category:Single-cylinder engines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Friendly advice: your copy-pasted text message reads "This has been done (…) because the category has been empty for seven days or more (…)". Seven days, not seven times three hours. Please go ahead and do something useful. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request
Global Log (somehow cannot be linked withing the unblock request):

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Rudolph Diesel
Why are you reverting my edits on the page Rudolf Diesel. I am simply altering the page to agree with the quoted source? The Proffesor (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

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

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

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

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Two-stroke diesel engine
Just a reminder that if you revert my edit on aero engines and fuels three times, you will violate the Three-Revert Rule and your account may be sanctioned. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII
I see that you have accused me of advertising in Wikipedia. While you see only that let me tell you what I have done. I have But you have undone them all just for the mere childish reason of "advertising"
 * Added a section about the Phantom VIII EWB which was apparently a passing mention in the last edit
 * Added an overview section mentioning what the car is
 * Added a tuners section for extra detailing

If you see any advertising in this article remove it manually without stripping the whole article down.

But if you have wrongly identified mentioning of luxury features such as the Starlight headliner as advertising, you are very much mistaken as they are the factors which uniquely define this car.

So I ask you not to engage in disruptive editing by undoing an editor's hard work for stupid reasons but think wisely and delete the parts which have faults in them.

Thank you

Draft:Arnergy
Hello, Johannes. Hope you're doing great. I need a little help from you and I would be very thankful for that. I've trimmed the article and have removed all the clutter and promotional tone of article in a bid to make it neutral. I am happy if you can further make it neutral by making any kind of changes that make it acceptable. I have re-submitted the article (Draft:Arnergy) and will be waiting for your review. Thanks. Fernande Bonhomme (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Johannes, hope you're well. I have updated the draft as per your comments and have removed YouTube as a source. Pardon me if I missed anything. Feel free to fix the issues as you deem fit. I will be waiting for your review. Kind regards, Fernande Bonhomme (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

BMW M20 specifications table
Hello Johannes. Sorry for hassling you, I was just wondering if you could comment on the changes proposed here: Talk:BMW_M20 please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Vanebbe
Now that you received a lot of support for your complaint regarding Vanebbe, what happens next? Sedimentary (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I will see whether this account gets blocked indefinitely. If so, I will look through the articles created with this account and see which good material I can rescue. The best thing will be proposing all nonsense articles for deletion using the WP:CSD G5 criterion after the account has been blocked. I mean, you can tell how awful the Autocar related articles were – trust me, the IFA-related articles were not any better… Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like action was taken. Thanks for your initiative! Sedimentary (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

What's going on with your SPI filings?
Hi, Johannes! Just so you know, both of your filings at Sockpuppet investigations/Zerolandteam385 omitted the "other users" and clerk/CU/admin sections, and also omitted the very important SPI case status template, which led to them not being listed at WP:SPI. (I happened to notice because I have the page watchlisted, otherwise they might have sat there for even longer.) Can I ask how you're putting your filings together? If you're doing it by hand, it's much easier (and much less likely to result in errors) if you use the form provided at WP:SPI or if you use Twinkle. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tamzin, I have actually done it by hand, I must have overlooked the SPI case status template. Thank you for letting me know! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

hi


Hello dear user. Amir Kaya is an Iranian-born entrepreneur and businessman working in Turkey and the UAE. More than 400 other biographical articles are available. thank you. M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Maximilian1985, if more than 400 biographical articles are available, then please cite them. Remember that, the articles need to provide the information that you want to put into the draft. Wikipedia is a reproduction of reliable sources. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * :ok.I will fix it in the next 48 hours. I will let you know. Thanks . M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to eat. Good luck, and best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * : Hello. I'm happy to confirm this page. I have registered 36 out of 400 sources.emir kaya page . Please check and thank you.M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Maximilian1985, please don't just place all these sources in the article – you need to provide the information from the sources in the article. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * : I am translating two more articles. I recorded the details in the article. I hope the article is approved.Draft:Emir Kaya. M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Maximilian1985, please note that, the sources that you add need to be reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject. I randomly clicked on two references, and they both happend to be not independent of the subject. Surprisingly, one source indicated that Emir Kaya is not Turkish. There is definitely some work that still needs to be done. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Salem Ilese
Hello, I moved the citations to the relevant parts of the Draft:Salem_Ilese article draft, as to show the information they are backing up. Thank you for pointing that out. I also included a new citation for the RIAA certified gold status. I appreciate your input. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I responded to your comment in relation to Notability (music). Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Salem Ilese has a new comment


I responded to your question about notability. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

AfC
Why did you declineDraft:Sachin Gupta (academic) ? -- he meets two of the quick-pass factors in WP:PROF --- Named profesorship ata major univesity an editor in chief of a major journal. I remind you that WP:PROF is analternative to the GNG, not a special case of it like the othe special notability guidelines.

I have accepted it. � DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello DGG! I agree that WP:PROF permits an article on Gupta. However, it does't mean that an article on him must be created. In its current state, it is impossible to verify the article's claims due to a lack of sufficient reliable secondary sources. I know that WP:PROF permits using primary sources, but, Wikipedia has WP:V, and WP:NPOV policies, and the article's creator Applus2021 has been blocked indefinitely for writing non-neutral COI articles. Therefore, I believe that it is warranted to doubt that the article is written from a neutral point of view. This problem, however, is easily fixable by citing additional reliable, secondary sources, which is why I have explicitly asked for these soruces to be added. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source for the facts of his career is his official university page and CV. There was a link to the page, but not displayed clearly -- I clarified both.Tho not independent, they're RSs for the purpose.   the link for the publications is themselves; the journals they are published in are reelable sources. The citation figure is from Google Scholar.
 * I agree the article needed some work,; tho it would not have failed afd even in the form you declined. Some people say we should accept them in cases like that, but my practice is of course not to accept them without doing a basic fix to show the notability more clearly.I don't want an article I accept to be even  challenged.
 * Part of the problem is our inadequately specific notices. I think you do indeed understand the guidelines--the problem, as often at WP, is how to communicate them.  DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mohammad Khan Zand
Hi. Thank you for your comment on Draft:Mohammad Khan Zand

Unfortunately, Mohammad Khan Zand born/passed away date is not clear in historical sources. even in his Persian(Farsi) Wikipedia article. Kidsonthemoon (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ana Maria Gayoso
Hi,

Thanks for your review on my draft of Ana Maria Gayoso I've collected a lot of external sources to support the importance of creating a page for her. I added a summary as you requested, several sections, and tried to format the references. There is still a few references where Gayoso is the first author, but as she is a scientist it is also sound to cite her work. I hope I have brought satisfactory answers ans I'm currently working on having her picture in creative commons. Thanks Flora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamudauw (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Nordic Rheology Society
Hi Johannes, thank you very much for reviewing my draft of the Draft:Nordic Rheology Society (NRS) Wikipedia article and providing valuable comments. I have now created a link from 's Wikipedia page to the NRS Wikipedia article to further demonstrate the relevance of this submission. I was also wondering if there is any other way to improve the quality of the submission, especially concerning the provided references. Already during the previous revision round, I added a couple of references to independent sources of information. However, I was wondering if you think that it would be beneficial to remove some of the references to the NRS website to increase the relative share of independent, secondary sources of information in the list of references? I am also happy to hear any other suggestions that you may have to improve the quality of my submission. Many thanks for your time and effort, much appreciated!

FinOlmi (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello FinOlmi – just in case you haven't seen it yet – Wikipedia requires paid contribution disclosure (see WP:PAID). I suppose you mean this by "adding a couple of references to independent sources of information". Well, the nrs.blob.core.windows.net source with Kádár as its author is not independent (even though it's a scientific paper). chalmers.se is an NRS press release, so it's also not independent. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johannes, many thanks for your prompt reply! I fully understand that the quality of references is a critical point here. With regard to Ref. 5, Roland Kádár was not the President (or even a board member) of the NRS at the time of the publication of this article. And with regard to Ref. 1, as far as I know, this news article was not a press release of the NRS, but it was written by the Communications department of Chalmers. Considering these facts, I do not think that these references should be considered inadequate for this Wikipedia submission. If I compare my submission to other Wikipedia articles in this field (Society of Rheology, British Society of Rheology, Journal of Rheology), I do not see any significant difference in the quality/independence of the references.

I am not getting paid for writing this Wikipedia article, but I am affiliated with the Society (I am the current secretary of the NRS). This is probably something that I should disclose when submitting the article for review. As I am writing my first Wikipedia article, can you please instruct me where I can disclose this information?

Many thanks for your kind help and advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinOlmi (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello User:FinOlmi, you can just write that on your user page (click on the red link of your own name). Simply add a note that reads something like this: " In accordance with the Terms of Use, I hereby disclose that I am affiliated with the NRS and write on their behalf ". Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Johannes Maximilian, I added the statement about the affiliation with the NRS on my user page. I am also wondering if there is still something that I could do to improve the quality of the Draft:Nordic Rheology Society (NRS) submission. The article draft features a decent number of references, and some of them are definitely independent sources of information as I explained earlier. If I compare this submission to the Wikipedia articles of other similar professional organizations, I do not see significant differences in the way that they have been written or what type of references they use. However, can you please let me know if you have any further suggestions on how to improve this submission before I submit it for re-evaluation? Many thanks for your kind help and support! FinOlmi (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello FinOlmi! An easy improvement would be citing sources that are not related to or affiliated with the NRS. It is quite apparent that NRS.org sources are indeed closely related to or affiliated with the NRS. Now, some of the sources may be closely related with the NRS (for instance if you wish to add a reference for something very much undebatable) – it's just that most of the sources shan't be NRS-related. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Johannes Maximilian, many thanks for your advice and patience in helping me! I will try to find additional references that are not directly affiliated with the NRS. Meanwhile, do you think that it would also be helpful to remove some of the references to the NRS website? There are currently quite a few of those references, and I think that the quality of the Wikipedia article would not suffer too much even if some of them get deleted. Then a relatively larger share of the references would be independent of NRS-related sources. Thanks again for your help User:Johannes Maximilian! --FinOlmi (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As long as there is a sufficient number of WP:SIRS-compliant references, additional xxRx-compliant (i.e. reliable, but neither secondary, nor independent, nor significant) sources may be added for information that is both not debatable, and significant on its own. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Johannes Maximilian, I have now added a few secondary, independent references to the "History" and "Conferences and publications" sections of Draft:Nordic Rheology Society. Can you please check if the article is okay now, or if you have further comments/suggestions? Many thanks! FinOlmi (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:3D stop motion game
hello my draft just got rejected and i do not understand because one of wikipedia volunteer told me: Hi 124.52.60.213 unfortunately there is a backlog and some are waiting a long time, or it could be a short time. To be fair to all submitters I don't review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random. There are currency about 100 active reviewers on a weekly basis. You could ask at an interested project such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

draft address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:3D_stop_motion_game


 * Hi! What rejection basically means is that the topic is not suited for inclusion within Wikipedia. In your particular case that is because the topic "3D stop motion game" is not covered in any sources. A Google search yields a single(!) result. It is warranted to believe that you have made up the term; but Wikipedia is not for introducing or promoting one's own terms, products, beliefs, etc. – Wikipedia is a "retelling" of existing sources, which means that the contents of existing sources are copied. Unless reliable secondary sources on a topic exist, it cannot have a Wikipedia article. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As I see it, Johannes, you did it right. There was indeed a good reason for saying reject, rather than just decline: it was submitted multiple times, not just without improvement, but making the promotionalism  even more evident. There are 2 even more definitive alternatives available if needed: MfD, and G11 speedy. If it's resubmitted,I think MfD would be the best choice.  DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini
Hi, I read the message you sent me about Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini and I have made the necessary changes. Check now if it's okay. Good day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonna Angelina (talk • contribs) 11:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:We Rave You
Hello, May I know the reason you declined my draft please? you didnt explain and it seems just a duplicated decline.. please explain whats read more like an advertisement in you opnion because I checked it all and dont see what and I want to get this draft approved. Thank you, --Genken21 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC).


 * Hello Genken21! The first thing that immediately hits an AfC reviewer in the eye is the wording. The third sentence in the lead section reads "the site attracts" and "in excess of 1 million". Next up is the History section, which doesn't really contain any information on the history of We Rave You except that it was founded by Yotam Dov somewhere in Israel. Instead, the History section promotes the magazine by expressing which artists it features, which sections it has, and so on, and so forth. Then, the article puts way too much emphasis on expressing who We Rave You's target audience are. Sadly, there isn't really any useful content that could be supported by all of what the draft currently contains. I have also checked the sources for WP:SIRS, and they virtually all fail – so that doesn't help either. I suggest you add information from WP:SIRS-compliant sources to the draft. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I will edit and before resubmitting will show you. --Genken21 (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I did some edits based on what you wrote and according to similar articles. Can you please advise what more if any..? --Genken21 (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is definitely an improvement! However, I'd still like to see some more WP:SIRS-compliant sources. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Johanne, How are you? Im happy you found it an improvement! thats first. As for my sources, I would love to run this down with you for a sec, I read all as well as looked at other magazines on wiki, and I think maybe a second look will help alongside an explanition...

For exampel, the website megatickets is in Hebrew but this is a dedicated article on we rave you, not paid or a form of PR. Also, the website anchor id for a radio station and again its on the magazine. Muckrack also is big and on we rave you and Edmhousenetwork is very very big and well know. I didnt place any PR articles or websites and I would love a second look because I placen many sources and I choose the big ones (again, after researching other magaines wiki pages). Please help me in making this wiki worthy. Thank you, Genken21 (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC).


 * Hello Genken21! I have briefly looked through the first ten references in the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't look too good I reckon: The references are either unreliable (1), or not independent (2, 3, 5, 7, 9), or not about WRY (6, 8, 10). The fourth source could be good, however, the namedropping is quite suspicious; I will overlook that for now. What do you think are the best three sources in the draft? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey there Articles, the best 3 are megatickets which is big in Israel and the article is all about WRY, elitedaily which publish the WRY and it the indsrty thats hugh, and 1001tracklists which shows the tracklists overview of WRY. Please also look at other magazine's articles.. Also, it seems that something is not right since the magazine is very well known and has so many views and downloads, can you please explain why its not worthy? --Genken21 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Genken21, as I have said, Megatickets might be a good source, and I am pretending it is one, for now. The other sources (1001 tracklists and elitedaily) have either nothing to do with the subject, or don't describe it. The elitedaily article is about Avicii, and the 1001 tracklists source contains no descriptive words. Here's a little thought experiment: "John Doe, the editor of 1001 tracklists writes the following about WRY: …". What would he write? At least I don't see any text there, maybe you do? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Help
Hi Johannes Maximilian, could you tell me what I need to change so that the draft on Salvatore Ambrosini becomes an article? Nonna Angelina (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Nonna Angelina, your draft has to be accepted before it can become an article – an AfC reviewer then moves it into the article name space for you. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Salvatore Ambrosini
Hello, Johannes Maximilian,

If you move an article from main space to Draft space, please tag the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2. It helps admins who patrol speedy deletion categories so they see the page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Liz, I usually do that – it's just that I have forgot it somehow (it's been late I reckon). Thank you for the kind reminder though! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Haren Gandhi Research and Innovation Award
Hello, Johannes Maximilian. Thank you for your feedback on my draft, I would like to get your opinion, if you would suggest adding the draft page about the award to the main page of Dr. Haren S. Gandhi. Thank you --Sarouk7 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd advise against that. Instead, I recommend that you add sources independent of the subject – that would drastiacally improve your draft. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

, actually, as a more experienced reviewer, let me advise you that  the first thing you need to do is to make it clear that the context is an award by Ford Motor Company to its own technical staff, not to the general public (see your ref 9.). The next is, indeed, to look for refs in the technical press to the award. If you cannot find them, you could add a paragraph on it and the award to the article on Haren Gandhi--that's common practice on WP.  DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini
Hi Johannes Maximilian! Thank you for your feedback on my draft. As you suggested, I entered another official citation and requested review

--Nonna Angelina — Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Johannes Maximilian,
 * On this draft, the page creator blanked the page and you reverted them? A page creator blanking a page is a way of saying they would like the page deleted, I can't figure out why you would revert their request to delete this page. I have gone ahead and honored their request. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, you told them here that only AFC reviewers can move pages from Draft space to main space? That isn't true at all. It's not even mandatory for an editor to submit a draft to AFC, they can move pages to main space immediately. It is recommended that new editors make use of AFC and pay attention to messages from AFC reviewers but it is by no means a requirement. Please do not give misleading advice. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to have an excellent understanding of the English language – I am convinced that you know the difference between only AfC reviewers should move pages from the draft space to the main space and only AfC reviewers can move pages from the draft space to the main space. As far as I'm concerned, AfC is also the only accepted way for "paid" (id est WP:PAID) editors to create new articles. I'd argue that it's against consensus if any such editors evade AfC by moving articles from the draft space to the main space – which is why I told this now blocked (and obviously WP:PAID) editor that only AfC reviewers should move articles to the main space. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Global state of the ocean
I do not understand your comments on this draft. "Current state of the ocean" doesn't mean ocean current but the present situation or present -day problems about the ocean as distinct from historical or future. And a discussion of the effects of global warming is not CRYSTAL.

The problem is not the article, but just the title--the article is actually about the effect of global warming on sharks. I have changed it to Draft:Effect of Global warming on sharks.

Please use decline, not reject, for cases where there's an apparent problem with context. And if you don't understand the article, let someone else review it.  DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I know what "current state" means, I am not that ignorant, and you don't have to explain it. The problem with a "current state" is that it is occurring whenever you are reading about it. However, this is Wikipedia – an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias cannot describe any such states by definition: They require a defined time range that is a proper subset of a defined time superset. The current state (id est 29 December 2021, 15:31) of the Ocean will not be the same as the state of the Ocean in 100 years. However, the article remains the same, and keeps implying that it describes the current state – the 29 December 2021 current state of the Ocean though will not be the 29 December 2121 current state of the Ocean. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on 05:16:53, 3 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by AshwiniHarsha
I have been editing this article since a long time and many of the references that i have made are from local kannada news papers and also the links like book brahma have published the information in local kannada language. and every time, looking at the profile of the reviewer, i dont think they understand kannada language and they keep rejecting with references or citations as issue.

there is one page on Kamala hampana who did similar work in the same field and the referneces that i have provided are also similar and lot better. i dont understand why they keep rejecting. Please assign someone who understands kannada as a launguage and the kannada literature so that they can really understand what is mentioned in those reference links

AshwiniHarsha (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ashwini Harasha! The problem that I figured your draft had was a lack of references in the "Early days" section. This particular section describes several aspects of Sannaiah's life and thus needs very reliable sources – on Wikipedia, we don't want to spread false information about dead or living persons. I also noted some things that strike me as odd: One source says he was born in 1926 (article: 1928), and the article also says that he is a writer (I suppose he died?). The overall grammar needs improving as well. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ashwini - Thanks Johannes. I have corrected the grammer with present and past and also i requested the Book brahma site also to update the birth dates with right information and they have done it. they also updated the death information since it was recent event in 2021. I also added the reference in early days section. Thanks for the details on review which helped to correct inconsistency with different sites


 * So you are saying that the Book brahma site is a user-generated source? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Why spread misinformation?
What is the purpose of editing on the wiki page if you won’t take the time or effort to learn about the subject in which you were writing? You relentlessly erased my edits and put your miss information back in their place you are 100% wrong and you won’t take the time or effort to learn about why you’re wrong this is very frustrating! I’m not sure if you’re stupid or if you’re just hardheaded or what? Do you want proof? What proof would you accept? I’ve provided you with links to the patents would you take the time to read them? I’ve also provided you with links to pages that have information about Brayton engines do you take the time to read those? Maybe you just don’t understand mechanical devices? If that’s the case you should not be editing pages they try to educate people about the history of these things. Imotorhead64 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking, your comment is neither very friendly nor useful. Contents on Wikipedia must be verifiable, not "true". We don't judge for ourselves, we simply write what the sources say. Sass (1962), p. 413, Richard (1892), p. 669, and even the website that you've brought up all say the more or less the same thing about Brayon's 1872 engine. And it should be totally clear that an 1890 patent cannot judge whether or not an 1872 engine can be considered air-blast injected. Don't get me wrong, the sources clearly indicate that Brayton's 1890 engine uses an improved air-blast injection system, and it is totally acceptable to mention it. However, there is no reason to remove Sass's opinion(!), not mine(!) on when Brayton invented air-blast injection. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Improvement
Hello Johannes,

You recently left a comment on my draft that I should improve the draft before I resubmit it again. Could you please elaborate on that what particular improvements you mean? I appreciate it a lot.

--ZahraBonari (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey! In an article on Jason Bahbak Mohaghegh, you should not cite books composed by him. The sources should be composed by other people. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Marie Seong-Hak Kim (Historian)
Hello Johannes, Thanks for your comment on the Draft of Marie Seong-Hak Kim. My response to your concerns is below.

Concerning the comment, ..”relies too much on sources written by Kim”: Many of these citations are from acknowledgements in her books referencing personal information like family, education info, and mentors. The majority of references in the Scholarship section come from reviews of her work by prominent scholars in the field of Legal History. Other references of her work are included in the draft, primarily as “See” references. This was done in lieu of providing a list of articles which does not tie them with specific areas of her scholarship.

The subject’s notability and achievements fulfill criteria 1 (“has had significant impact in scholarly discipline”), 2 (“has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor”), and 3 of the WP:PROF criteria list.

1. Kim has published 5 books by major presses (including Cambridge U Press and Oxford U Press), over 25 academic journal articles, over a dozen scholarly book chapters, excluding book reviews and miscellaneous short writings. She published articles in English, French, Japanese, and Korean. Her books have been reviewed by highly cited journals in both law and history fields (Am. J. of Comp. Law, J. of Asian Studies, Am. Hist. Rev, etc.), in English as well as foreign language journals (Revue international de droit comparé, Zeitschrift für Japanisches Recht, Toyo Bunka Kenkyu, etc). Journals in which her articles appeared are all extremely rigorous and selective journals around the world (American J. of Comp. Law, Law & Hist. Rev., J. of Asian Studies, J. of Japanese Studies., The Hague Journal of the Rule of Law, etc.). She holds a unique place in the legal history field, carrying out interdisciplinary and comparative research in law, history, Europe, and Asia.

2 & 3. Kim has received a number of highly prestigious academic awards and honors at both national and international levels. These include NEH Fellowship and Fulbright Fellowship in the US and Fellowships in Europe and Asia, including Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study Fellowship, Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Fellowship (European Institutes for Advanced Study and Marie Curie Fellow of the European Union), Collegium de Lyon Fellowship (Institut d’Etudes Avancées), and Käte Hamburger Kolleg Fellowship, and Social Science Research Council Abe Foundation Fellowship. All these awards have been documented and verified by the awarding institutions and through webpages.

May be a bit too much info, but again thank you for your help and guidance. Histscho89 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mahmoud Shehabi Khorassani
hello, Johannes Maximilian, thank you for having been kind enough to read my draft, but unfortunately given that it was not in the standard required by wikipedia, you refused it. Now I tried again to put it in required standard, I hope :). can you please take a look at it and tell me if it's ok or something still needs to be changed.

I would like to add that this article concerns a very well-known personality in Iran (1903-1986) and that there is already a wikipedia page in Persian and one in French on him.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Chehabi

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/محمود_شهابی_خراسانی

thanks in advance.--Docteur Mansour Chehabi (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ivan Kravtsov
Hello Johannes, thank you for the comment!

I rewrote the article to improve the overall language, could you please have a look at it? Thanks in advance. --Kianugears (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

I Cannot Find the "Draft:Abu Torab Fatemi Mehra" as notified. thx!
A document I spent considerable time on has been deleted. This is a sandbox. why the bully!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UserCmehrasandbox.jpg

Please retrieve ASAP.

Thanks,

Cyrus C. MehraCmehra (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Cyrus, please see WP:REFUND. The user's sandbox is not a place for submitting drafts – this is why your AfC submission was moved to the draft space. Drafts that were declined or abandoned are deleted. I always recommend saving a copy of your work on your local hard disk. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Bango plc information
Hello, would just like to request more info on useful sections for the Bango plc page, alongside corporate history and fiscal data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehrozs (talk • contribs) 10:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello! You can simply add anything that reliable sources consider worth mentioning. I was a bit concerned about the partners, simply because announcing partnerships doesn't hurt, and doesn't require any notable incidents – i. e. notability in the sense of Wikipedia cannot be established through partnership announcements. Articles should make it immediately obvious why Wikipeida would have an article on the subject. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Britney Haynes
I did change it since the last time I submitted it. I added references, I don’t understand what more I have to do? She was literally on a TV show which is linked which is a primary source, along the magazine articles, and the CBS biography.

—Angelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquessAngewoah (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello MarquessAngewoah! In a Wikipedia article, it is not only important that something is true, but also that it is worth mentioning. By citing a source that is secondary, reliable, independent of the subject, and which covers the subject significantly, you ensure that a Wikipedia article is warranted. In your case, the sources that you have cited are reliable, but they are neither secondary, nor do they cover the subject significantly. I suggest that you cite sources that monothematically discuss Haynes. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * So what do I cut? I feel like all of the information was pertinent to her life and her stay in the Big Brother house. Do I cut the references that don’t directly cover her?
 * —-Angelo

So?? I don’t understand? MarquessAngewoah (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I bet you are asleep but let me attempt helping you out anyways. A Wikipedia article is so to speak a "re-narration" or "reproduction" of the sources that it's based upon. This doesn't mean creating direct word-by-word copies of the sources, it rather means that you describe, using your own words, what the sources have to say. So let's have a look at source 6 (CBS) of your draft. What it says is that "on 1 May 2022, Big Brother season 16 launches in the US. The show was recording using 94 cameras and 194 microphones." As you can obviously see, this is totally unrelated to Haynes. What you need to find is sources that have something pertinent to say about Haynes. Then you cite these sources using the accepted methods of doing so (see WP:CITEHOW for help). Now remember that, sources need to be reliable, (i.e. sources that have a reputation for providing well-researched information), independent of the subject (i.e. sources that Haynes cannot influence, neither directly nor indirectly, so that it is warranted to believe that a knowledgable, reliable source considers her to be so important that she can be subject of an article), secondary (i.e. sources that are not an event, speech, photograph, original writing, etc., but an interpretation of these), and that cover the subject significantly (i.e. a source that monothematically discusses Haynes without talking too much about anything else). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! MarquessAngewoah (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Richard Mortimer (Musician)
Hi, thanks for your comment (I hope I'm doing this right, I'm still a relative newbie). I'll change the Discogs references to MusicBrainz references. Please let me know of that's correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophytte (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

RE: Peddireddy Ramachandra Reddy
Just to let you know, I overrode your declination of this draft and moved it to mainspace and cleaned it up so that it is in a grammatically acceptable state. NOTDICT isn't really a valid decline rationale in this instance, as this isn't a word; declining for v would've been a bit more understandable; however, as the subject is notable via WP:NPOL and the sources provided confirm this, then it would be preferable to accept. Stubs are acceptable if they sufficiently demonstrate that the subject is notable. Cheers Curbon7 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey! I felt that NOTDICT was indeed a bit awkward, yet I'd argue that an article should be an article – on my screen, there was less than one half line of text. Anyone could create "articles" like this in a few minutes – but it certainly wouldn't be an improvement; the days of "non-content articles" have been over for 20 years I reckon. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Teija Niku declined submission by you
Please, give detailed explanation of your claims

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

i.e. do not refer just Wikipedia guidelines and recommendations. How the sources are not indipendent and why, for example. How "they not show significant coverage"?

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.

Where do you see in the whole article a single sentence advertising something?

Regards, --Bocin kolega (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Bocin kolega!


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, id est it depicts and describes what is believed to be established knowledge. Therefore, anything that you wish to write about in Wikipedia has to described in so-called secondary sources (monographs, books that describe several aspects of a single topic, scientific articles, or articles in at least nationally well-known newspapers). Please note that these sources have to be reliable, independent of the subject, and they have to describe the subject significantly. In the article, you have cited four sources:
 * WOMEX
 * aallotarmusic
 * De La Croix de Lafayette
 * Kaleva


 * The WOMEX source is not independent of the subject, because it was created by a public relations firm called Haapavesi Folk ry, which is paid by Niku. Aallotar is also directly associated with Niku and thus also not independent of the subject. Wikipedia's reliable sources policy explicitly prohibits the use of these sources, see WP:SPONSORED. De La Croix de Lafayette is a self-publishing author and thus unreliable; citing his book is not acceptable in Wikipedia (see WP:RSSELF). I have no understanding of the Suomi language, so I cannot determine whether or not Kaleva is an acceptable source. But even if we pretend it is acceptable – a single source does not indicate notability. You need to cite proper sources for the article.


 * Regarding the "advert" problem: Wikipedia describes the topics of its articles from a neutral point of view. Anything that is a strong value judgement has to be very-well sourced, and it has to be described whose judgement that is. Your draft's first clause reads "[Niku is] an expert in Nordic and Balkan folk music". The second sentence reads "She is a composer with an excellent sense of melody and an inventive arranger"… Do you need more examples? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Post Scriptum: The draft also refers to some sources without citing them.

Response

False statement: The WOMEX source is not independent of the subject, because it was created by a public relations firm called Haapavesi Folk ry, which is paid by Niku

From https://haapavesi.fi/node/1393 * Haapavesi Folk ry - is a non-commercial cultural organization, which since 1989 organizes annual international folk music festival, which became traditional in our town and well-known in Finland – Haapavesi FOLK. In spring and autumn there are folk music weekends presenting musicians from different countries. In winter, in January-February, the association holds a music event called "Music of Past Years”.*

Re: Aallotar is also directly associated with Niku and thus also not independent of the subject.

"Directly" means what? The author of the biographical data about the two musicians is Christian Pliefke. Is there any other reference questioning the biographical data given here?

False statement: De La Croix de Lafayette is a self-publishing author and thus unreliable;

What are you talking about? The athor Maximillien de Lafayette is not owner of the Times Square Press publishing company

False statement: But even if we pretend it is acceptable – a single source does not indicate notability

See above - there are multiple sources supporting Niku's notability

False statement all about advertisements:. Your draft's first clause reads "[Niku is] an expert in Nordic and Balkan folk music". The second sentence reads "She is a composer with an excellent sense of melody and an inventive arranger"…

The above text is about appraisals of Niku's artistic achievements, not advertisements.

--Bocin kolega (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Straightforward question: Do you have a conflict of interest or are you being paid to edit? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None of it. You are obliged to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF fundamental principles--Bocin kolega (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Christian Lavernier
Dear Johannes, thanks for your help and your remarks. Can you give me some clue to better improve my content? I tried to use a neutral language but evidently there are still some errors. Thanks in advance. --Kastalia81 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion / Question
Hello there, i got a "thank you" from you for one of my edits, so i read your userpage up and find it interesting, but im a bit surprised your nationality isn't there at all. Can I ask you where you're from? And i'd suggest adding that to your userpage if you'd like, it would be nice. Cheers - Joaquin89uy (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Svetolik Jaksic
You left a comment here indicating this is a notable topic. On what do you base this assessment? ~Kvng (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey! I pretty much base that upon GNG. Any topic is notable for inclusion within Wikipedia if it is covered by a significant quantity of reliable secondary sources. It is warranted to assume that these sources exist (because they appear as citations in the references list). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Any of the sources specifically? There are 6 cited and they don't seem to be complete. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The references list is obviously incomplete (i.e. it calls Harvard citation no brackets) without specifying what the cited sources are; they have been specified in the corresponding article found in the Serbocroatian language version of Wikipedia using the cyrillic alphabet, but the English draft lacks them. I have noted this in the draft (Special:Contribs/1081337932) so it's up to the submitter to fix this. Regarding notability: Now because the English draft's references section is totally shot I have looked up the Serbocroatian language article found on sr.wikipedia and checked its references section. And it definitely indicates notability: The cited books are biographic works, thus it is warranted to assume that they discuss Yakshitch (I suppose that's the best version of his name in English per WP:TRANSLITERATE) in significant detail. Otherwise I would not have stated that I believe that he is notable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Wikipedia:Map data/Singapore/Sentosa Monorail (1982-2005).map
You declined this draft as a "test edit", which is not true. The submission is a Map data and I have already been able to use it to display the map at Sentosa_Monorail ——2406:3003:2077:1E60:D59D:E6EC:AEA9:4652 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The draft space is meant for articles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I used the new page wizard and that's what I got. If I understand correctly, you are saying that AFC is not the correct mechanism to get this reviewed and accepted. If so, can you please advise how to get the page approved and moved to its appropriate final location at Map data/Singapore/Sentosa Monorail (1982-2005). Thanks! —— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:D59D:E6EC:AEA9:4652 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have moved the map into the Wikipedia namespace. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! —— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:D59D:E6EC:AEA9:4652 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Request on 09:52:16, 21 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by GJAHANA
GJAHANA (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC) HELLO, please someone help me to publish my article about uzbek actor which i am writing about 8 month here in wikipedia, i never thought its such hard to publish :( please someone help me..

Hello ! You need to fix your draft's referencing, i.e. replace instagram, imdb, etc. with proper sources. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ivana Franke
Dear Johannes,

Many thanks for your comment on my Draft:Ivana Franke

Could you please clarify which kind of pages you advise to add? I thought they were enough references.

I’ve added a link to VIAF: https://viaf.org/viaf/search?query=local.names%20all%20%22ivana%20franke%22&sortKeys=holdingscount&recordSchema=BriefVIAF and Artfacts.

Many of the artist’s exhibition catalogues are also referenced in the world’s network of library content: https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=ivana+franke

Would it be relavant to include this link and in which section?

Thank you,

--Cryo nik (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Cryo nik


 * Hey, please add the pages that you have read and obtained the draft's information from. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Uncle Waffles
Hi,

I saw that you tagged this for speedy as a creation of a blocked or banned user, but you don't seem to have filed a SPI or anything. Could you give me a little background as to why you think it was created by a blocked or banned user? If I've just missed or overlooked a SPI, I apologize. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey ONUnicorn, the draft keeps being created in exactly the same manner with exactly the same wording by exactly the same person – with different accounts. Somebody apparently feels that he or she must create this article. Presumably, one of the person's main accounts is User:Stevence SA, at least that's the account that appears in the logs. Just have a look at Uncle Waffles; the article has been deleted per CSD G5 and it's been salted. Draft:Uncle Waffles has recently been G5'ed too; the person behind all this even tried evading the salting by creating the article under DJ Uncle Waffles instead. The whole Uncle Waffles thing has become a nuisance. Whoever does this abuses that not everyone knows the full story behind all this. He or she will keep trying until someone unknowingly accepts the article. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. I've deleted it. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Uncle Waffles
Hello Johannes Maximilian. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Uncle Waffles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Do you have evidence that the user in question is a sock puppet? Thank you. BangJan1999 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Stevence SA, and the section above where I asked the same question about a prior iteration of that draft. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Johannes Maximilian. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed,Rosguill talk 19:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

São Paulo ePrix
Hello Johannes! Few days ago the contract for the Draft:São Paulo ePrix was confirmed by FIA, so it will happen next year. Please, could reconsider your opinion and maybe even accept the draft? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Mayor of Barishal
Hello Johannes Maximilian. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Mayor of Barishal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page title is a plausible redirect, or it does not substantially duplicate the other topic. Thank you. BangJan1999 18:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Xiol
Apologies for the inconvenience caused by this draft (I thought that I should have known more on the notability and reliable sources guidelines regarding archaeology). I usually contribute to the BTG Wikiproject and Film one, I wasn't aware that archaeology subjects required high-quality peer reviewed refs like science ones. Sorry for this mistake, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Barkas B 1000
Cab over is an another, more common term for forwand control, see the mentioned article. Regards, Kotori Habane (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Rover 1S60
Hello, Johannes Maximilian,

Please do not move-war over draft articles. Page creators are allowed to revert a move to Draft space. It's fine to move a recently created article from main space to Draft space but don't move it to Draft space twice if an editor objects to the move. At this point, either help improve the article or use one of Wikipedia's avenues for deletion if you believe the content is unsuitable for the project. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest you propose abolition of the AfC process instead. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ravish Tiwari
Hello, Johannes Maximilian,

I have revised the draft as you suggested. Can you please look at it again and possibly accept it? Thanks! VPSingh 18:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)(Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Škoda Superb
Why did you revert my edit without giving a reason? Non-members have the right to edit this site and all editors have a responsibility to input correct information. My edit restored correct, valid, sourced information that had been irresponsibly removed by a so-called "administrator". You may be one of these people who think administrators are always right. Well, if so, you need to think again. 92.17.5.57 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

M196 S engine.
So why on page about 300SLR we can see numbers of power above 310 PS. So this engine can produce this power but on higher revs. So fix it, please. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * In internal combustion engines, there are multiple different standards for power. What is typically used is the rated power output, which is a continuous power output the engine can provide without overheating. And in this particular case, this figure is 276 PS at 7000/min according to the DIN 70020 standard. Now we can easily calculate whether or not the 310 PS claim is realistic (note: 1 PS = 75 kp·m·s&minus;1; 1 min = 60 s)


 * $$23,250 \, kp \cdot m \cdot s^{-1} \cdot (2 \cdot \pi \cdot 116.66 \, s^{-1})^{-1}=31.72 \, kp \cdot m$$


 * So the engine would need to produce a torque of 31.72 kp·m at 7000/min in order for the 310 PS figure to make sense. We know that the max torque is 31.7 kp·m at 5950/min, and that it drops after it reaches this point in the revrange (and we do consider the desmodromic valvetrain which gives a huge cylinder charge boost for a naturally aspirated 16V eight-cylinder engine high in the revrange). Therefore, we can safely conclude that the 310 PS figure is unrealistic with the engine tuned to standard conditions. Simply said, in order for this figure to be physically possible, the engine would need to have a flat torque curve from its peak torque point until it reaches its rated speed. And such a torque curve is unlikely. The 310 PS figure is possibly achieved with cold intake air on an engine dyno and no ancillaries. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

question about a draft (list of floppy controllers)
how will this play out? am i expected to write the article by myself?

if notability has been established, why the holdup?

there are people arguing that i shouldn't link to draft articles.

i am not trying to promote my vegan dog food business. why does wikipedia want to stand in my way/ Nowakki (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

About Kedar Narsingh KC
Hi! Did you check the draft for issues I mentioned in my draftification summary? Because, I see that the article has not been edited since I draftified it, and it was utter garbage then. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Usedtobecool. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Kedar Narsingh KC, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Declined article
Hi,

You just declined my draft here, I'd like to know why and how to improve it please.

From what I understood from your review is that the article was "biased", but I only wrote 3 lines in it and literally the only adjective I used was "one of the argest" which is not a biased descreption but a FACT that is mentionned in the article.

Besides, is that the only reason the article was declined? because all the rest was lists and numbers for the performed lives.

Also, the format I used is the formal usual one for live performances articles, I added nothing new.

Would love to a reply soon. thanks. RWikiED20 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason why I've declined your draft is that its lead section is composed of hardly comprehensible text that is not encyclopedic. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

wait, can you explain further? or point the mistakes with examples? Because if you mean the introduction before the tables, as I said I only wrote a brief description of the tours QUOTING THE ARTICLES which were all approved by Nate.Ko and independent. I Really don't see the reason for the declining, I've had accepted articles before and usually if it's declined at one point, the problem would be the sources and not the content. RWikiED20 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

List of Tibetan to English Translations
Hello, I write you because my article was declined (first by you and later by another reviser that was a bit rude, hehe). I honestly can't see the difference between what I'm trying to post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Tibetan_to_English_Translations and this other Wikipedia article from which I got the idea of publishing mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_literature_translated_into_dead_languages When working on the draft to resend it, I tried to mimic this list, with links and quotes. Could you please guide me a little bit? I would really appreciate it and would be very grateful.

In other hand, I completely unaware of what did I do to change "reject" into "decline" as the other reviser points out: "Also pointing out that the submitter edited the previous reject into a decline in order to resubmit. Please don't waste reviewer's time like this. Greenman (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)" I'm really sorry about that. 108Sam (talk) 10:28, 24 October 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Request on 23:14:03, 17 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MonstrousP
Hi Johannes! You just reviewed my page which I submitted on 17th December 2022. I am a bit confused regarding why it has not been approved because I have written the content in a non-promotional tone and I have cited each and every sentence. Can you please help me out on this? I love to write and writing on Wikipedia is my dream. Please guide me on this submission, I will be really grateful to you. Regards, MonstrousP

MonstrousP (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello MonstrousP, you need to cite sources that indicate why Wikipedia would have an article on the subject. There's a lot of people who have certain degrees and who do business; Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have articles on them. The second source that you have cited doesn't even mention the subject, so, there's just one primary source and frankly, that's not how Wikipedia works. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 02:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wankel
Nice to see that you are able to improve Wankel engine unhindered. We have the same luxury at Merseyrail and associated articles now that the troublesome editor who deemed him/herself the article's owner has been indef-blocked. Don't let your guard down though, it's only a feeling but someone with that level of behavioural issues is unlikely to let go easily and therefore it is feasible we may at some point suffer from some sockpuppetry. Be vigilant and keep up the good work! 10mmsocket (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your kind message! I have been around for a couple of years, and I have seen a lot. This lad is definitely not the first, and possibly not the last editor who has been troublesome. I know cases of ridiculous sockpuppetry and nothing will put me off easily, so, don't you worry.
 * Internal combustion engines like the Diesel engine or the Wankel engine are complex machines that are both fascinating and very difficult to wrap one's mind around; thus, there's a lot of incorrect, misleading, or outright false information around (especially on Wikipedia), and frankly, these topics are also very attractive for conspiracy theorists. I have heard everything I reckon: The Diesel engine is only more efficient because of its fuel containing more energy, Herbert Akroyd Stuart and George Bailey Brayton are the true inventors of the Diesel engine, and the Wankel engine was only abandoned because the automotive industry wanted to keep the reciprocating piston engine alive. A lot of the stories behind the technology is fascinating, and many untruths seem very plausible – the reciprocating motion of the Diesel engine must be very inefficient, and a lot of the produced work is lost to accelerating and braking the piston. The truth is, a lot of people have absolutely no idea of how this works and I am surprised by how many Wikipedia articles were written by people who don't understand what they're writing about, and well, the German language version of Wikipedia is not any better (or worse).
 * I could go on about this (this is my own talk page); there are so many articles on internal combustion engines and automotive technology affected by "Wikipedia-compliant" but still irresponsible editing that it is difficult to focus on those that are good examples of what's so wrong. Something I found very recently is the article on the New Routemaster: It is 68 kilobytes in length but doesn't describe the New Routemaster at all. Or the article on the flexible-fuel vehicle, which certainly tries to be all-inclusive by including every single vehicle sold in every single country, but at 210 footnotes, it fails to limit its topic so that the flexible-fuel vehicle can be sensibly described. And then there's articles like the Wankel engine article which I believe were written by car enthusiasts: The article explained virtually the same (not even wrong) things over and over again with different wording and tried to mislead the reader at several points; the "hydrogen makes the Wankel engine super efficient" claim is an example that I think you might have seen – the point is that it is not false, but nonetheless not reasonable to present in that manner: See, hydrogen allows a more efficient operation because of its favourable ignition limits which allow more efficient lambda values.
 * Another problem is that a lot of the good sources for automobile/engine technology are simply not available in English, which might explain why many good sources have remained unused/uncited for so long. The Wankel engine article tried to cite Wolf-Dieter Bensinger's 1973 book, but it did mediocrely at best, sometimes even totally failing to describe the book's contents (I suppose because of improper understanding of the German text). And this eventually leads back to editing patterns which get editors indeffed; German source authors/editors are liars, Springer-Verlag is an unreliable, unscientific publisher, citing the best sources is one-sided, and totally unquestionable blog-like sources must be included in every article.
 * But hey, I have successfully ignored most of the hassle and I am convinced that I have improved several articles along the way. I just keep on going. Best regards, -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen some of the changes you have made to the page. I could see, you have removed the content we added and that was genuine. Unfortunately the majority of the content of this article is clouded with the Mazda rotary engine in the automotive applications. There are several skepticism about rotary engine due to history of Mazda engines. But the rotary engine was quite successful in other area such as the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). One of the leading UAV Platform AAI Shadow is powered by UEL rotary engine for over two decades. I think there should be more research on the niche market where this engine is a perfect fit. There are several other new researches and patents around rotary engine which is not mentioned in these articles. . Please see some of the research publications along with UK based Academics at: https://www.aieuk.com/publication/. I would request you to include AIE into your research. I have made some changes to the page which is 100% genuine and have referenced it either citation or links.  Best regards Saleelp (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A new account pops up and immediately know how to do stuff here, a likely story. The thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i. e., it doesn't depict what is "true", it depicts what reliable sources say. Therefore, we cannot promote aieuk's technology. Please also note that I can access most scientific sources (papers, monographs, books, etc.), and I can also comprehend what these sources say. You have made so many bizzare, ridiculous and false claims not backed by anything that there is just nothing worth saving about your edits. Sorry if I'm being that honest and straightforward, but that's sadly the case here. But, let me explain your edit nonetheless:
 * "the cooling issues was not addressed until recently" – virtually all decent sources describe them, for instance, Bensinger (1973), pp. 110; this book is over 50 years old, so this is definitely not recently.
 * "Most of the efficiency and durability challenges were due to the lack of cooling of the rotor metal and lubrication of bearing" – no source says this, in fact, all reliable sources say that the efficiency problem is caused by the Wankel engine's poor geometry (e. g., Bensinger, p. 85). Nobody says it's due to cooling. The lubrication of the main bearing is also much simpler in a Wankel engine (Bensinger, p. 121–122), and the problem of the rotor cooling may be resolved by using more powerful oil cooling (Bensinger, p. 122).
 * The source that you mention describes a mixture cooling system. But this is nothing new! Mixture cooling of Wankel engines is already mentioned in works from more than 50 years ago. Also note that Turner et al. don't discuss any efficiency improvements.
 * "the Wankel engine struggled with negative perceptions" – no source says this
 * "Norton rotary engine specialist David Garside developed three patented systems to address [the issues of inadequate lubrication and cooling in ambient temperatures, short engine lifespan, high emissions and low fuel efficiencies]"
 * Who says that David Garside is a rotary engine specialist?
 * As mentioned, inadequate lubrication and cooling are addressed in Bensinger's 1973 book
 * Short engine lifespan had been resolved years ago and Bensinger also describes this in his 1973 book
 * High emissions and low fuel efficiency cannot be resolved, which Bensinger also describes in his 1973 book
 * Also, none of Garside's inventions improve efficiency. They cannot! In order to do so, one would have to make the Wankel engine a reciprocating piston engine.
 * aieuk.co.uk is linkspam, it fails verification for all claims. If you make strong statements, you need very good sources, which you have never cited.
 * Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AIE directors. Hmmmm.... 10mmsocket (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, WP:UPE. I had already suspected this, but I didn't want to have a closer look. Not surprised, but still disappointed. Cheers, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Does being a director of a Wankel Engine company disqualify talking about the Wankel engines? I am not here to promote our products on Wki, rather, I would like to let the world know about the work we have done at AIE in terms of Wankel Rotary Engine technology and its usage in various applications. I will share some of the SAE papers links about the technology written by academics and other third party institutes based on the tests they have carried out using our engines. If you want to understand these material about without any prejudice, please feel free to explore below articles.
 * Chapter: Application of a rotary expander as an energy recovery system for a modern Wankel engine by IMECHE and published by: CRC Press
 * SAE Paper: Control-Oriented Modelling of a Wankel Rotary Engine: A Synthesis Approach of State Space and Neural Networks
 * SAE Paper: Investigations into Steady-State and Stop-Start Emissions in a Wankel Rotary Engine with a Novel Rotor Cooling Arrangement
 * SAE Paper: Comparison of 1-D Modelling Approaches for Wankel Engine Performance Simulation and Initial Study of the Direct Injection Limitations
 * SAE Paper: Testing of a Modern Wankel Rotary Engine – Part I: Experimental Plan, Development of the Software Tools and Measurement Systems
 * SAE Paper: Initial Investigations into the Benefits and Challenges of Eliminating Port Overlap in Wankel Rotary Engines
 * All the comments you made above are based on a book published in 1973, I believe that is bit out dated.
 * In terms of David Garside, you should read a book called "Norton Rotaries" (ISBN: 1855321815) by Kris Perkins published in 1991 by Osprey Publishing Ltd . In that book the author introduced David Garside as "Father of the Norton Rotary Engines" (p. 42).
 * I would request you to spend time to understand the recent developments in rotary engines if you are an researcher with open mind.
 * Best of wishes Saleelp (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, read WP:PAID. Bensinger's book is from 1973, but it covers the absolute basics of the topic, i. e., things that cannot be obsolete. You are refering to a book from 1991, which is not outdated? Interesting approach. Either way, feel free to add useful information to the article, but cite appropriate sources (that back the claims) and don't just link to your own website. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we linked just to our website, we referenced to third party sites as well such as SAE papers and patent sites. Thanks for your response, lets work together to make the content relevant for the general public. Regards Saleelp (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record: Special:Diff/1131307719 and AIE directors. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello , The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day. won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
 * Backlog
 * 2022 Awards

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from  to  '''

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as and  have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

I made a mistake
Thanks for taking the time to review my edits to Diesel engine. You found an important mistake that I made. From other readings, I mistakenly thought the diesel cycle was also an otto cycle. Editors like you keep Wikipedia accurate. You might consider checking some of the additional edits I made today. Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, no worries! Actually, the Diesel cycle is just a concept, the Diesel engine does not operate on that cycle. A better way to refer to that cycle is the constant pressure cycle, because at combustion, the pressure remains the same, and only the volume expands. The Otto cycle is a constant volume cycle, which means that the pressure increases at combustion, but the volume remains the same. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The capitalization of pV is interesting. Why is the "p" not capitalized?  In the Pressure–volume diagram page, both letters are capitalized in 10 different places.  Should the pressure–volume diagram page be changed to pV?  Both pressure and volume are common nouns, unlike Volt or Ampere.  When I did a google search for "pv diagram", one result came up as "P-v diagram", and all the rest were "PV".  Thanks for your help.    Comfr (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the symbol for pressure is p, whereas P is the symbol for power (but this may be different in your place). I was told that the diagram is thus a pV diagram. The same principle applies to the Ts diagram in which the specific entropy s is used rather than the entropy S. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Be aware that blocked user Wisdom-inc is back and active on Wankel engine. I just reverted his edits per WP:BE, but you should keep a close eye out. Blocked users often pop up again and again so stopping them can be like playing whack-a-mole. If it becomes a problem on any particular article we can always apply for semi-protection against unregistered and new editors. Any questions just ask. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello 10mmsocket, thanks for that reminder. I have recently been quite busy and I haven't had a chance at checking Wikipedia thoroughly. I'm glad that you've brought this to my attention, I'm pretty sure that I otherwise might have missed that. I'd gladly return the favour – if I can help you with accessing (or evaluating) sources, especially German-language ones, just let me know. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Request on 17:20:07, 20 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Diggida
Hello, Johannes. Thank you for reviewing my entry on Mike Sawitzke. I responded to your comments on that page but I'm not sure if they are visible to you so I'm trying this. Still figuring out Wikipedia! :-)

The record credits I cited are physically printed on the albums and show up on Spotify, TIDAL, etc. Allmusic and discogs reflect this, but I know they're not considered reliable because they're group source. I tried using direct link to ASCAP to show songwriting credits, which seems like an excellent source. The articles on Relix.com, magnetmagazine.com, and guitarsexchange.com are articles written on the topics and seem like good sources to me and seem to corroborate the other data. The bio was referenced from a music school the subject taught at so that seems good too. Can you help me parse what needs work?

Thank you!

Diggida (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Chen Chien-jen cabinet
Hey there! I’m the creator of the Draft:Chen Chien-jen cabinet. I see that you have declined the submission I posted, I wanted to know what specifically I need to add on that page. I’ve been told by another user that the draft was reliant on one only sources and I need to add more, which I’ve did. I am assuming there are more issues to the page than just adding sources so I would like to know what specifically to fix. Thank you! Ogiwarahoshi (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Hammad Raza Khan
Corrected some issues Sage Asjad (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Jagadish Palanisamy
Hi,

Thanks for your review on my draft of Jagadish Palanisamy, i have made all the changes you and others suggested, could you please look at it again and let me know if it can be published or if you want me to make any other changes, i have re submitted it for review (Draft:Jagadish Palanisamy) thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syler.mi4 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: Hey, thank you for the very quick review. I had already replaced the 3 of the 4 unrealiable resources, but forgot the remove the outgoing links from the references section. I have fixed that and added a new source for the last citation. I hope they are reliable. Please have a look again.

Please let me know if the page can be published?

Thank you! Best Syler

Draft: Amy Scholder
Hi there,

Thank you for your comment on the draft. I made some changes and replied to you over a month ago and haven't had a response yet. Are those fixes acceptable?

Thank you. Kazrene (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft: LILIAIR
Hi Johannes, could you please explain, why you have deleted my article/what were the problems with the sources? ShortKingBen (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello ShortKingBen, I haven't deleted your article, you have created the article as a draft in the draftspace, which means that it is not yet a Wikipedia article. The problem with your draft – in a nutshell – is the lack of sources; the draft cites only a single source which is insufficient for demonstrating that the topic is notable for inclusion within Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e., it depicts what is considered to be "established knowledge". Wikipedia is not a platform for establishing knowledge, i.e., don't put an article on something mostly unknown on Wikipedia for promoting that topic. Liliair is very obviously something that hasn't been around for long, and thus something that isn't talked about a lot. This becomes clear if you have a look at the sources; as I said, the draft cites a single source – possibly because there aren't any other sources which I presume is because of the unknownness of the topic. The airline first has to become known before it can have its own Wikipedia article. Unless the sourcing situation changes within the next six months, the draft will likely be deleted. (I can also explain this in German if you deem it a bit incomprehensible.) Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Johannes, thank you for your answer. Does that mean that, once the Airline has started operations, that it is important for an encyclopedia? ShortKingBen (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello ShortKingBen! Once the airline has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of it, it qualifies for its own Wikipedia article. There is a chance that said coverage will be there after the airline has started operations, but take that with a grain of salt as I am no divination expert. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Johannes, thank you for your messages and help. Best Regards to you too, Ben ShortKingBen (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the go ahead on the Issue One Page
Hi @Johannes Maximilian, thank you for the go ahead to make edits to the Formation section on the Issue One page! I just made the edits. I'm curious if you would also be willing to take a look at the edits I suggested to the Organization section of the page, which you can find on the Issue One Talk page. I'd appreciate it if you could give me your thoughts on that section and possibly make some of the edits, or once again give us the green light to make those edits. Thank you again! AR at Issue One (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Johannes Maximilian Thank you again for your work on the Issue One page. I'm wondering if you could take a look at a couple more edits we've requested, if you have the capacity. First, this sentence, which was in the Election Protection and Voting Rights section of the Organization part of the page: “Ahead of the election, the council launched a campaign called 'Count Every Vote' which supported election integrity and countered disinformation. The council also spent $6 million on an advocacy campaign that ran after the election and focused on ensuring all remaining ballots were tallied.” Another editor noted that Inside Philanthropy isn't a good source, and that the article makes just a passing mention of the campaign. Here are a couple of additional sources in case you'd be willing to take another look at that section: a || Washington Post op-ed from NCEI members announcing the Count Every Vote Campaign, an || Axios article with bit more detail about the campaign, and || more coverage from the Wall Street Journal.
 * I'm also wondering if you could look into adding one more sentence to the final paragraph under the same section: "Issue One also advocated for an update to the Electoral Count Act." There was a similar sentence in our draft, which another editor chose not to include because there was only a passing mention of our support in the article we linked to. I wanted to share || another article that shows that Issue One actually launched an ad campaign to update the Electoral Count Act. Of course, feel free to include whatever you think is appropriate, I just wanted to share this additional context. Thank you so much! AR at Issue One (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daphne Guinness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valentino. 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) 06:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
I wanted to thank you for reviewing the Jonathan Karp edit requests, which sat in the queue for a while. On the off chance you take requests for additional reviews, I've also proposed some updates at Talk:Ajit Mohan. Thanks again either way! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello , Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by  and  with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of, and also some patches from , has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and on IRC.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New pages patrol needs your help!
Hello , The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by using  at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Crosman 150
Fix WHAT issues? You didn't state that there were any issues. King of Pwnt (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello User:King of Pwnt, I didn't have to state any issues as another reviewer had done that before me. This is why I came to the conclusion that you resubmitted the draft before fixing the issues as described here: Special:Diff/1171985415. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So you are saying I just need to remove the reference that happens to be a blog, only because it is called a blog?
 * A blog that has been a major source of reliable information for 20 years is a reasonable resource.
 * Not sure what illusory standard of quality you think you are enforcing here, but this is just Wikipedia, the universal source of rubbish information. King of Pwnt (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Request on 15:43:45, 26 August 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Josh G Wilson
Hi Johannes,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to review the Inner Circle draft page. You mentioned to fix the issues before resubmitting but I believe I did already. The discography is in a text box and there are more than 3 reliable sources, secondary, and strictly independent including The New York Times and All About Jazz. The only thing I don't understand exactly is the bare URLs, could you help me with this. I was reading about it but I still don't know exactly what to do, could you give me an example with one of references in the article.

Thank you, Josh Josh G Wilson (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Antonio Micallef
Hello, you rejected my page on Antonio Micallef, apparently based on the references I provided. I would like to clarify that the Facebook references I provided are either the actual page of the respective band club (some have websites and others have a Facebook page) or links to documents on Antonio Micallef's own Facebook Page to verify information in my submission. Furthermore, I provide reference to a biographical book on Antonio Micallef (by Farrugia, A.) which is published on Amazon.com in paperback and Kindle editions (ISBN 9798512574454). All reliable sources. I am very keen to have Antonio Micallef included on Wikipedia and I am prepared to make any adjustments for the submission to meet Wikipedia standards. Please let me continue to work on the submission. Thank you and kind regards, Rebekkin Rebekkin (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I have removed all references to Facebook and Youtube. Does this make more in conformity with Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Rebekkin (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Rebekkin, you are actually putting effort into improving your draft which deserves my help. Now, I reckon the core problem here is that the way you have referenced isn't indicative of encyclopedic article writing. See, an encyclopedia like Wikipedia summarises what reliable secondary sources say about a certain topic, because Wikipedia depicts established knowledge. References in a Wikipedia context are thus always references to reliable sources, they are not standalone references. You need sources before you can write a Wikipedia article.
 * A simple experiment using the sources you have cited shows what I mean: Current reference 4 (https://maltaorchestra.com/) reads the following: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost; Born of the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate; Was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into Hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven; And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body; And the life everlasting. Amen." That is the Apostles' Creed – what does it say about Antonio Micallef? If your answer is nothing, then it's correct.
 * I could elaborate further – which I won't do due to time concerns – but I have left a comment regarding the remaining 10 references in the draft. Please, using your own words, rewrite the draft in a way that it becomes a content retelling of the supporting sources that you reference to. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Johannes, I will go back to zero and restart. Hopefully I can meet Wikipedia's standards. I may take a couple of days to rethink and redraft. Thanks again and regards Rebekkin (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience with me and for your help. I've now rewritten the draft and revised the references. I hope it meets with your approval. Kind regards Rebekkin (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Anshul Vijayvargiya
Hello,

You have rejected my page on Anshul Vijayvargiya, Screenwriter, Director and published author based in India without providing adequate information. The reason provided "not adequately supported by reliable sources" even though I have cited several reliable sources on this page. News articles from several prominent publications of India are used in citations to support every information provided in the article. Please share which information doesn't have "adequate reliable source"? I would like to correct it or contest it. Rahuldiwan1980 (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, in your case, the situation is so immediately obvious that I thought it doesn't need explaining; now, YouTube, IMDb, or Times of India aren't deemed reliable sources. Also note that the references section contains various "references" that aren't related to anything. The article needs fixing regarding that. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The article on shared intentionality
Hi, I believe, you rejected the article about shared intentionality due to a misunderstanding (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shared_intentionality). You left the reason: "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, see WP:FORUM. New terms or principles must be established elsewhere." However, this article does not introduce a new concept; shared intentionality is not a new psychological construct. To my knowledge, this concept is generally accepted in cognitive sciences. For example, Dr. Michael Tomasello received the prestigious David Rumelhart Prize 2022 as an award for his insights into cognition evolution and, specifically, the knowledge development about a contribution of shared intentionality to cognition and social reality formation (https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/rumelhart-prize/, this is prestigious prize in the Cognitive Science Society). Rigorous academic journal Frontiers in Psychology recently published special research topic dedicated to shared intentionality (https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/35928/exploring-shared-intentionality-underlying-mechanisms-evolutionary-roots-developmental-trajectories-and-cultural-influences). Each sentence of my article is a quotation of reliable peer-reviewed academic article. Now, the article has 11 reliable references. If you allow me to proceed with the article processing I also can add other reliable quotes of articles based on more than 20 years of different researchers. Best regards, Ana Ana Padovana (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Sorry, I do not understand why my message was placed in between of your answer. Excuse me about this. Please let me know if I can correct this placing of my topic in your chat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Padovana (talk • contribs) 06:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Ana, I'm very sorry, I made a mistake. I browsed my library and it seems that this actually exists, but it isn't as straightforward as it could be. Your draft, however, still needs some copy-editing: For instance, the draft should begin with a sentence like this: "Shared intentionality is a concept in psychology that describes [insert what it describes here]." I also still think that your draft would benefit from additional sources. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Johannes, thank you so much for the kind reply. Best regards! Ana Padovana (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Question
I want to know if the draft ( Draft:Hossein Mohammadi Vahidi ) you rejected just has a writing tone problem? Can it be turned into an article by improving the tone and things you said? I am a little confused No editor with experience helps me in editing the text, and I think everyone gives a personal opinion Thanks Jackpet11 (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this but you've been trying to create this article for some time, years to be more precise. And you haven't been doing anything else. Do you really think that nobody has figured this? If you are being paid or otherwise associated with the subject and have a conflict of interest, then it's your obligation to improve the draft by figuring how Wikipedia works. If I told you I wasn't biased at all my answer would be dishonest, but I'm trying not to put obstacles in your path, i.e., I won't decline your draft just because I have the suspicion that you're an undisclosed COI editor. Beware though, other editors might not be this fair. There've been too many attempts at creating poor articles with the use of blatant cheating. I will accept good drafts, but yours isn't acceptable because of the issues I have described. Wikipedia is a place that describes what third parties say about a subject, and your draft isn't indicative of that principle. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just asked for your help and you accuse me.
 * I have not received any money
 * I have a major activity in Persian Wikipedia with another username.
 * We say again that I only asked for help to be encouraged to write better articles by accepting an article from me on English Wikipedia, but it didn't happen.
 * I checked and showed the criteria of the artist's reputation with sources, and you objected to the type of writing
 * Please be calm and forgive me if I upset you Jackpet11 (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no hard feelings, I just recommend you have a look at WP:SCRUTINY though. Also note that a sock editor whose main account has "a major activity in [another] Wikipedia" would certainly not get his article G11'ed. I suppose we end this discussion before you get yourself blocked from editing for socking, UPE, spamming, or a combination of the three. Please improve the draft – if it's acceptable, someone will eventually accept it. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Maggie Grout
Hi Johannes, thank you for providing feedback on the draft. Would you please check when able that the lines are fixed with the citations? Thank you! Altruist2015 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Kowsar Saba Holding Company
Hello, Dear Johannes. Hope you're doing great. I need a little help from you and I would be very thankful for that. I've trimmed the article and have removed the promotional tone of article in a bid to make it neutral somehow. I have also removed the “external sources” from the draft.

I am happy if you can further make it neutral by making any kind of changes that make it acceptable. I have re-submitted the article and will be waiting for your review. Best Regards. Samaneh2894 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)