User talk:Majash2020/Archives/2019/July

Ranjani Ramachandran
Hi. You rejected Draft:Ranjani Ramachandran saying "Inline citations need to be fixed". The page has plenty of inline citations, and I don't understand what's wrong with them. I've checked the minimum standards page and believe the citations exceed the specs there. The citations are appropriately footnoted and all the links in the footnotes work. Can you elaborate? Without details, your comment is less than helpful. Psurajit (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Mjs1991. 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 encylopedia. 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 In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:55, 5 July 2019 (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.

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Misformatting references and track listing and inserting multiple irrelevant references...
Why would you do this? Please use ping if you respond here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , first of all, the references don't belong in the references section, they need to be added as inline citations, hence why the table so inline citations can be added there rather than having all the references in the section, see WP:INCITE. Secondly, Metacritic score needed to be updated and i added in the ratings table to make it look more appropriate. And the addition of a tracklist looks better too. If this is an issue, please let me know. --Mjs1991 (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * References are to be included at the end, hence Use list-defined references is one of the first things in the article. Why do you think that doesn't apply to you and your edits? Secondly, I do not believe that track listing looks better--I think it's much worse. Thank you for updating the Metacritic score. If you want to reinsert Album ratings but exclude reviews of unrelated albums, that would be a welcome addition as well. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicolas Chaillan's page
Sir, Thank you for your comments regarding my draft page for Nicolas Chaillan, the Chief Software Officer for the Air Force. I believe I've addressed your concerns. Deleted 404 citations which don't exist anymore. Added new Air Force and DoD citations. Fixed the existing citations... his role as Chief Software Officer for the Air Force should be enough to demonstrate that he is notable. He also founded 12 companies, was Chief Architect at DHS and Lead DevSecOps for all of DoD. I have refs for all of these, all mention him by name. Several dedicated articles on him as well.

There are now a dozen or so articles that talk about him as the Chief Software Officer for the Air Force and the Co-Lead for DevSecOps for the Department of Defense. Same for his role at Qualys as CTO!

Since he is an entrepreneur and for the company's references, it is quite common that articles talk about the company AND him so I'm hoping this is enough... He is always mentioned as a reference to demonstrate his involvement. My goal was to prove he was part of those companies.

Page is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nicolas_M._Chaillan

Thank you sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanbernard2019 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

‪Anatomy Act of Quebec‬
Apart from improving articles, my page creations were mostly shortcuts or project/template-space pages (apart from many user talk pages when patrolling). This may very well be my first actual article, at least that I remember. Thanks for patrolling new pages, — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it was my pleasure. Good luck with your future creations.--Mjs1991 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Devoe nomination & declination
Hello Mjs1991, I have a quick question for you about this edit that you made to Draft:Paul Devoe nominating it for deletion under CSD criterion WP:G4. What makes you believe that it falls under G4? I am genuinely curious if I missed something. --Regards, The SandDoctor  Talk 04:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, unfortunately i misread the G4 criteria, and put it up for deletion based on the fact that it has been up for deletion discussion. I wasn't aware that this article has more content than the previous article as I can't see that previous one.
 * But shouldn't the article still be up for a deletion, as the individual is only notable for the murders and nothing else, as per WP:BLP1E?--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes . As for WP:BLP1E: you may be correct, but drafts tend to not be reviewed against notability guidelines in the same way that articles are/as strictly (eg "notability" is generally not an accepted sole reason for a draft to be deleted since drafts are intended as a work-in-progress). You are more than welcome to nominate it at MfD, but just be prepared for possible opposition if notability is the sole reason for nomination. What I will have to ask though is that you please either change your decline rationale of the draft from WP:G4 to something relevant or rescind and leave the review open for someone else to take a look at as the decline rationale is currently invalid. If you ever have any questions, do feel free to reach out! --Regards,  The SandDoctor  Talk 04:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for letting me know --Mjs1991 (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Could you please rescind your AfC declination (on the draft) per my request (by removing it)? (Given that you have nominated it for deletion, I do not see the need to re-instate the submission template unless the outcome is "keep".) -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability
Please see my note to you at Draft:Jill Fisch. --2604:2000:E010:1100:4D9F:AEE9:85C7:8566 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam Lowe
Hi, you rejected this (Draft:Adam Lowe) for inline citations issues. I think I've fixed these. Can you take a look? MHdabbler (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 20:00:57, 16 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Emilythornberg
Hi! I am having trouble understanding why this page isn't getting approved. I've edited it a few times and put reliable sources where Jordan is mentioned on multiple records and personal albums. Could you please explain more thoroughly why I can't get approval here? Thank you!

Emilythornberg (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . the only sources on the page are from AllMusic, there needs to be more secondary sources from news articles, journal, ect. Please read WP:THREE, it might give you an insight on what you need to do. Thanks --Mjs1991 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your changes to chart peaks
What is with this edit and the one before it? You didn't "update" the Australian and UK peaks, you changed them to an incorrect peak position—the album peaked at number 7 in Australia and number 4 in the UK, not 28 and 11. Please be careful in future. Edit: Oh right, I remember you asking now if we keep the peak or update to the latest chart position... it's always peak positions on discographies and in chart tables on articles. A lower/more current position has never been significant.  Ss  112   08:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had done those edits a bit before messaging you for your help, when I started to realise I may have been wrong. I probably should have gone back and fixed up those edits.--Mjs1991 (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mary Smith
Hello! My draft was rejected for lack of reliable sources and for using its own site as a source. Please look at [|this page], which has fewer sources and includes two sources linked to its page, yet is approved. I would really appreciate some feedback/guidance on this. Thank you! MarySmith1099 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Disregard - I just saw some additional editor comments and made some additional changes. Thanks!MarySmith1099 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
... for creating album articles that are well written and properly sourced with reviews and chart placings... I'm sure you're well aware that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of album stub articles on Wikipedia that are poorly-written garbage that need time and effort to be worked on, and it's such a relief to come across one of your articles and know even before looking at it that it won't need anything more than perhaps a WikiProject tag added on the talk page. Thank you for the great work. Richard3120 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement. Which article was it that you came across?--Mjs1991 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All of them! I regularly go through the list of new articles created at User:AlexNewArtBot/AlbumSearchResult to see if they need work, redirecting, etc. and your articles crop up there all the time. Richard3120 (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Stewart Vaughan - speedy delete
I am astonished to see this notice.

I did an online course in 2017 with wikiMOOC, so I have not approached this as a novice.

I discovered that the French wikipedia page about the Théâtre de la Michodière, (about which, living in Paris, I know a lot,) had been translated into English. Indeed, following this, I made some clarifying contributions. Stewart Vaughan's name appears many times on this page, as the coadapter of major works by major UK authors such as Ray Cooney. He is a member of the French SACD (Society des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques)with the highest of the three statuses (Adhérent, Sociétaire adjoint, Sociétaire).

As further French personalities appear on English wikipedia, where relevant I have provided a link to Stewart Vaughan For example, see the page for Delphine Depardieu. Referring again to this page, you will see a link to Jacques Decombe. His page on English wikipedia is practically empty but I see no call for deletion.

I have provided references to web sites and publications which provided authentifying proof. I have not clicked on the "contest this speedy deletion" until I have a response from you.

You state "the article... does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant" I would argue: The proportion of SACD "adhérents" who reach the status of "Sociétaire" is fairly limited. Someone who has adapted major British playwrights and seen their work performed in major Parisian commercial theatres, as well as Brussels major commercial theatre is not insignificant. Someone whose work as an adaptor has been published by France's major theatrical publishing house is not insignificant. Someone whose work has been performed by stars such as Gerard Jugnot, Francis Perrin, Roland Giraud, Alexandre Brasseur, Stéphane de Groodt, is not insignificant.

I look forward to hearing from you. Fuhndhu (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Stewart Vaughan - speedy delete
Further to my previous message I have checked https://www.sacd.fr/la-sacd-en-2018-les-chiffres-cles

Towards the end is to be found a button

"Retrouvez les chiffres complets dans le rapport annuel en ligne"

This enables you to download a pdf on page 19 of which you will see :

The SACD has 54 837 members of which only 8 153 have reached the status of "sociétaire", the highest level of membership.

Stewart Vaughan's status as a "sociétaire" of the French Society of Authors, on its own, in large part, justifies the notability criteria.

Fuhndhu (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Marking PROD as reviewed
Hey, I noticed that you marked an article I nominated for PROD as reviewed. While it's suggested that articles nominated for AfD be marked reviewed due to the level of community participation and scrutiny at AfD, it's best practice to avoid marking PROD articles as reviewed, as they can have their tag removed by anyone and can thus fall through the cracks. Additionally, some editors sometimes like to avoid nominating for AfD right after their PROD tags are removed, as it can give the impression of hounding, but if the article has already been reviewed and removed from the new page queue, such editors do not have this option. signed,Rosguill talk 17:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)