User talk:Novem Linguae/Archive 2

Reply to your message to fitwrite about notability guidelines for Anonymous Personal Sex Blog
Hi, Thank you for your comments about notability guidelines.

This is in reply to your request for sources to meet notability guidelines for my draft article Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. I also include all the other points about the article issues, a copy of my post just now on the help desk, for your reference.

This is a summary to address all the comments about requirements needed to get my article Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging published, including the important General Notability Guidelines criteria to meet notability, as discussed by @NovemLinguae. I will work to vastly re-write the article to make it acceptable in the ways outlined below. Please let me, have I have missed any important re-write guidelines so I can do a good job and the next submission for review will end in publishing?!

The reviewer Bkissin had originally said that in the draft submission “references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article that is, they do not show significant coverage…about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent.” However this reviewer on the help desk page later conceded that the issues with the article were more to do with it being original research.

In dealing with this issue I will refer to the article meeting General Notability Guidelines criteria to meet notability, as later discussed by @NovemLinguae. Novem Linguae said for General Notability Guidelines it would help if I could provide 3 reference sources from the article that use the exact term Anonymous Personal Sex Blog and have a few paragraphs of content about this subject. Now the concept of the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog is used in the sources but it is hard to find a source that coins the exact term “Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. " For example, the sources may discuss the concept or the actual manifestation of an anonymous blog with personal writing including about sex. I have listed below 7 sources used in my article that do provide a meeting of notability guidelines. It becomes plainly evident in reading these 7 listed secondary sources, four academic journals and three published books, that they are studying, as part or all of their study focus, blogs that are either all anonymous or some are anonymous and are personal, including ones all about sex or about sex and other subjects. Formality of this ruling could be furthered by considering under Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines because the subject is in the field of computer and Internet studies and further specifically anonymous personal sex blogging is a new Internet phenomenon emerging in the 2000s, then there is not 100s of years of notable research; then possibly the subject needs different criteria in considering notability. A further point is, I had submitted the draft to the reviewer with the title “Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging”, i.e. the act of creating blogs. However someone or possibly the “magic of wiki A.I.” had made the decision to revert the draft to one with an earlier title of “Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. " In studying the subject carefully as I did, one will notice that there is far more research about the act of blogging in this specific way than about the actual self-contained Anonymous Personal Sex Blogs. This is because there is much blogging done on social media platforms such as Twitter, and on date sites where the blogging occurs not on a blog but on a platform for blogging or computer communication. I think that using either title, the criteria for notability is met but there are more sources for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging compared to for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. A case in point is: Lloyd, C.E.M., Finn, M.D. (2017). Authenticity, validation and sexualisation on Grindr: An analysis of trans women’s accounts. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(1-2), 158-169. doi: 10.1080 / 19419899.2017.1316769, which is a source for Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging rather than for Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. I provide this example because there seemed to be some question about whether there were three notability sources so, every example for the case may help. I have listed 7 further examples of sources for this notability criteria, (for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog title), as follows, and I can easily provide more, out of the 70 references, if it comes to that, and if there is still a question of the very existence of the article on wiki):

•	Attwood, F. (2009). Intimate adventures: Sex blogs, sexblooks' and women's sexual narration. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 5-20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240691173_Intimate_adventuresSex_blogs_sex_blooks'_and_women's_sexual_narration •	Cardell, K. (2014). Dear World: Contemporary uses of the Diary. University of Wisconsin Press.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=TX7VBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=Everyday+Authenticity:+Contemporary+Uses+of+the+Diary+Kylie+Cardell&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV9vainLDuAhWyFzQIHZwDDfkQ6wEwAHoECAEQBA#v=onepage&q=Everyday%20Authenticity%3A%20Contemporary%20Uses%20of%20the%20Diary%20Kylie%20Cardell&f=false

•	Farrer, J. (2007). China's Women Sex Bloggers and Dialogic Sexual Politics on the Chinese Internet. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs-China aktuell, 36(4), 10-4

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14455603906827013971&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3Dftjio56S0SsJ

•	Ferreday, D. (2010). Writing Sex Work Online: The Case of Belle de Jour. Wagadu: a Journal of Transnational and Women's and Gender Studies, 8, 273-292. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/55280/ and at https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=15456196&AN=59523517&h=3wppKEiprwL%2b8%2ftYx7H82c1XrZufJuqUIoLbv3CPhw5svCZFO4SrbCQG7QSVbyAxVLP5EyCztiXpWK5Lp8D3aQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d15456196%26AN%3d59523517

•	Tiidenberg, K., Nagel, E. (2020). Sex and Social Media. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/sex-and-social-media

•	Wood, E. (2008). Consciousness-Raising 2.0: Sex blogging and the creation of a feminist sex commons. Feminism & Psychology, 18(4), 480-487. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Wood+2008+sex+commons&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DJGDZllexCWYJ

Note the links are from my research data records and are not often in the article references. I cited everything using APA style before I learnt to wiki mark-up the references in to wiki. Now I realise the wiki system seems to favor providing links for all references. Is this necessary? I could probably find links for most of the 70 references if I had to but it would be a lot of work to code them all in. Also because I did not use paywalled databases a lot of my research involved downloading pdfs of journals which then have no link, and then the link is to the database entry or abstract and not to the journal itself. Then technically wiki readers cannot easily access the research from my references. To change this I would basically have to start the research from scratch again, gain access to paywalled sites and write a different article, making futile my months labour to write this complex highly researched article. I hope this is not required. Of course newspapers often do have links and the books have links to Google Books but it is rare, I would have thought to be able to provide a link to a full book with all pages accessible, so for references to books, wiki users are usually not going to get links to specific pages within a book anyway.

Does this meets the criteria for notability for the subject?

Next the reviewer and another reviewer who made comments had mentioned that I should summarise the topic, create a precis, write about it from a  neutral point of view and have no original research, use mostly secondary sources, use primary sources only backed up by secondary and a few tertiary sources (eg. Britannica); and not contain opinions; and not draw my  own conclusions in summarizing, just report what the secondary sources say.

In writing this way I should write in an encyclopedic style and consider what wiki is intended to be used for, to make my article integrate into the wikipedia general content. I will vastly re-write the entire article to change it from an essay or thesis to a wikipedia entry.

Does this sound acceptable?

Other points also mentioned by others, but not, I do not think by reviewers, are: try to avoid content that is already in wikipedia and use only thumb size pictures. For the pictures, I have read on wiki that larger pictures are allowed, there is discussion on one wiki page about how to upload panaramic large pixel dimension photographs for a nice effect. My photos are a pleasant visual addition to help break up text and I took a lot of effort to find the 7 pictures and photographs which are encyclopedic in character, historical and so lending provenance (a wiki listed quality to have on a wiki article) to the article. The photographs and pictures are all carefully found in archive museum-like collections (none from social media or other questionable online sources), that definitely state the lack of specific copyright restrictions of either CC-BY or PDM. Further the “plates” are works of art in themselves and look good presented in large detailed form and give the article a more impressive book like quality. Then I do not see why I should have to reduce them to meagre thumbs. The case is not a big one and any reviewer can, in a few minutes add the “thumb" code to the wiki mark-up to change the pictures if this is a rule to get the article on wiki. As to the other point about overlap of content with other wiki articles. Wiki is a vast database and I would need a sophisticated algorithm on a mainframe computer to do a thorough search to ensure that every sentence in my article is not a repeat of ideas from another article. Since I do not have this computer capability I am unable to control for this. Further since wiki is being constantly edited then content overlaps must be being continually created and changed, out of anyone’s control. I think this more could be an “editor myth", that you have to cut out all overlapping content? Intuitively when I think of an encyclopedia I think of something that one never reads from cover to cover. If one looks up something in an encyclopedia is it not better to get a comprehensive coverage of the subject, which entails coverage of the basics that may also be written about elsewhere in the encyclopedia. At this point I will assume this is not an issue and will not try to write out potential guessed overlappping content from my article unless a reviewer tells me otherwise.

Please tell me now anything I have missed to ensure that I do a thoroughly job of re-writing the article so it is published, next.

Thank you, Fitwrite. Fitwrite (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi. Please see WP:TEXTWALL.   Onel 5969  TT me 00:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi onel5969 thank you for your addition of a more interesting social interaction to this. I have learnt more about the unique elements of the wiki community such as talk page stalkers. I am currently busy re-writing my so called "wall-of-text" which others have more kindly told me is a mis-placed academic "essay or thesis" and turning it into a nice wiki article. I would be happy for your input when you see my wiki draft in a nice completed published form. Cheers fitwrite :) Fitwrite (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Creppe
Hi, saw your comment at this draft... we have by far ever single village of 2 metres in India covered ;-) CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Google Maps ain't got nothin on us ;-) – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... https://goo.gl/maps/PRTKQttCGFbRso2v9 & https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creppe :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:SysCAD
Hi Novem - I was wondering if you could please assist me with the article Draft:SysCAD? This is a specialised chemical process engineering flowsheeting software - I have been struggling with two issues - notability and bias. I don't believe notability is an issue - the software is widely used, but in a less common field of engineering. For bias, I understand the conflict, and would appreciate any feedback which could eliminate this. DanMunchie (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello friend. I don't think that bias is too big an issue at the moment. The bigger issue is that the reviewer determined that the software is not notable. That is, that it doesn't pass our notability guidelines. See WP:GNG for the simple version of our notability guidelines. In summary, there needs to be significant coverage (multiple paragraphs) directly addressing the topic in around three high quality, reliable, independent, secondary sources. As for the sources used in the article, ResearchGate is self-published, therefore it is not independent, so that one doesn't count toward GNG and should probably be trimmed. The "proceedings" type citations look like meeting notes, which are not secondary, so those probably won't work. I believe these are the issues that the reviewer had and are the reason for declining. I suggest looking for and adding additional sources that meet the GNG guidelines. Newspaper articles can work quite well. So can books as long as they are independent and secondary. Good luck. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will review the guidelines and references and update accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up on ResearchGate, I will remove this. For conference proceedings, sometimes this is the only location these articles are published in our field (these yearly conference proceedings act like industry journals).DanMunchie (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I spot checked one of the "proceedings" type references just now. . These types of sources may be OK (as long as they aren't written by the software publisher/developer) since they end up published in a book. One problem in the one I spot checked is that it wasn't significant coverage of SysCAD. It only talked about SysCAD indirectly, i.e. "we chose these settings for our project". Maybe there is a proceedings article that talks about SysCAD directly, i.e. the title of the article is SysCAD and then the article goes into detail about its features, uses, what the authors think of it, etc? Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. I'll see what I can find. The problem is that the software is a modelling package. People in the industry are unlikely to independently write a review of the package itself (especially to then be published), rather they publish results they generate 'using' the package relative to their study, and add a quick mention. See PRO/II (a similar package) as another example. Since the software is mostly used in industry rather than academia, the majority of process modelling use cases do not get published (confidentiality, trade secret, etc.) DanMunchie (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As with the PRO/II page, I hesitate to put a series of historical mentions such as:   (1991, 1994, 2007), but I could if these snippets provide additional/historical notability. DanMunchie (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the info. That PRO/II page isn't looking too good, I nominated it for deletion. That second link you provided looks promising. If you have access to the book, might be worth checking if there are multiple paragraphs describing SysCAD. The link preview only shows some of the first paragraph, which looks good so far, that is the kind of significant coverage people are going to be looking for. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help today - I updated the references further, added a logo image, and have resubmitted. Fingers crossed it is accepted this time. DanMunchie (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Mt. Union Cemetery
Hello, I am a new Wikipedia editor, I am working on creating the article Mt. Union Cemetery because this particular cemetery has historical significance in Oregon. This particular cemetery was actually in part donated by previously enslaved people who were manumitted, then the land was open for the burial of both white and Black peoples. I have undergone this project as a way to contribute to Black history in Oregon through acknowledging the settings, businesses, and biographies of some of Oregon's Black pioneers. While I am still learning, I appreciate any help, but would prefer to be able to bring my article up to community standards as I learn- since it's an important article, rather than having it deleted before I can do so. If there are ways for me to make this article better other than what I'm doing, which I am currently adding credible sources and information, please let me know and I'd love to learn and make the article better. I know you proposed my article for deletion, but I'd love to talk about why, provided you have time. --Libcuri (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , hello friend. Thanks for the message and welcome to Wikipedia. I added the PROD template because the article doesn't have enough sources that satisfy WP:GNG, and I wasn't able to find any of these sources to add myself after doing a quick first page search of Google web, Google news, Google books, and Google scholar. If you are able to find sources that mention Mt. Union Cemetery and talk about it in some detail (at least a couple of paragraphs), I would love for you to add them to the article. We're supposed to have around 3 sources like that to pass GNG. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD on K. Surendran
Hello. You have placed an AfD tag on the page K. Surendran (the subject is a writer). There is confusion in nominating this article for deletion. The AfD I tagged was for the page K.surendran (the subject is a politician and the page was deleted multiple times) which is completely unrelated to the page K. Surendran. I accidentally redirected the page K.surendran to K. Surendran before nominating it for deletion. Perhaps should I revert my redirect action and then remove the AfD on K. Surendran as there is no need for a discussion there? Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello friend. I apologize for getting confused. I saw the redirect and I assumed somebody had moved the page, so I copied your tag over to the 2nd page. Yes, I think the solution you propose is excellent and should make things very clear. I support whatever you decide. Let me know if I need to do any clean up on my end. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey. I have removed the redirect and deleted AfD from K. Surendran. Thanks. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ury diagram
Thanks for reviewing and commenting! I just added a link to Reference 4 to make it easy to download. Yisraelury (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I changed Reference 3 to a much more relevant and hopefully independent reference. All the drawings are new and unpublished and of my own creation, made using Google Draw. Yisraelury (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for swapping out that source. Looks like Ury is one of the authors for the new source, so not independent. This one is so close to passing that I actually did some googling and looked for a 3rd source myself. I'm having trouble finding one that qualifies. Feel free to add additional sources and leave me a message when you're ready for me to check the draft again. I will leave the draft submitted and pending. I'm not personally comfortable passing it, but maybe another reviewer may evaluate it differently. Best of luck. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , we also accept foreign language sources. Might be worth checking for sources in Hebrew. Just need one more good source to pass. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lexicography user box
Is there such a thing as a Lexicography user box? Filmmaker8306 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , not sure. Your best bet is to go find an article that is similar to the one you want to add an infobox to, and see if it has an infobox. If it does, hit "edit source" and look at what code it uses. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , whoops, I thought you said infobox. For userboxes, there's two ways I look for them. 1) Go to WP:USERBOX, and type the topic into that box that says "Search for userbox topic". 2) Google "wikipedia userbox lexicography". Lexicography sounds a bit too specific (I don't even know what that is), so you may want to try something more general, like "languages" or "lingustics". Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I misspoke. Lexicographer/y is someone who compiles dictionaries. I like words so I’m a logophile Filmmaker8306 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

1984 misinformation
Just follow the science and not corporate drell. This reference, and using ABC as a source is misinformation campaign. Unfortunately people need to learn a bit of science and go to peer reviewed papers, and double check the criteria of those conclusions to be informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.20.52 (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Help
Hello sir, Can you please have a look at this draft (Draft:Divya S. Iyer)? Is it okay for publishing? Is the sources are okay?

Thanks for your valuable time. ProudMallu (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Novem Linguae, sir, can you please have a look at the submitted article? Draft:Divya S. Iyer ProudMallu (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . Hello friend. I submitted the article for you so it is in the queue now and awaiting review. Your three best sources for passing WP:GNG are . I feel this article's notability is borderline. I am going to ask my colleague's opinion and I will get back to you soon. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, thank you so much. ProudMallu (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of Dispute Resolution
Please note I have now taken the discussion at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) to Dispute resolution. Spa-Franks (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Amzie Adams
Copyright problem icon Your edit to Draft:Amzie Adams has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC) I authored every word of this entry. The words, as I had written them, were also used on Amzie Adams' personal web page WITH MY PERMISSION. So the words were not taken from Amzie Adams' website. The entry was written by my self for Amzie Adams' personal web page and then submitted unchanged to Wikipedia for review for a Wikipedia page.Chachaburger (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thanks for the reply. All text that is used on Wikipedia must be freely licensed. The text at clearly says "Copyright 2021" at the bottom. It is best to write all text from scratch or to heavily paraphrase, to comply with our copyright rules. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Declined status of Draft:Endeavor Business Media entry
Hi there, I am still trying to navigate communicating on Wikipedia, so apologies if this is redundant. I appreciate you visiting my draft and making edits. I am fine with waiting for experienced reviewers to evaluate my draft, but it was nominated for speedy deletion for a variety of reasons I do not understand. One user seemed to take issue with the fact that I'm employed by the company I'm writing the Wikipedia article for (I thought I was following the correct process by disclosing the COI), and another said my sources were regurgitated press releases and PR material, even though every single one of my citations is from a verified news source.

Endeavor Business Media is a three-year-old company that has grown very quickly, due to the many acquisitions made over the past three years. Nothing I have written is false, and every statement can be linked to a reputable media source. I understand if my writing tone may not be within the standards Wikipedia mandates, and that's why I'm hoping to receive more guidance from experienced reviewers as I wait in the queue. It is disheartening to have other users immediately try to carry out a speedy deletion on my article before I have the opportunity to work with other people to improve it.

Perhaps I misunderstood the spirit of Wikipedia. I am willing to learn and take the time to do this correctly, but so far, you are one of the few people who has been helpful. I welcome any advice on how I can proceed and improve this article without having to start over again.

Thank you.

Abigail Christine (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thanks for the note. I'm sorry to hear that your draft hasn't been well received. I disagree with the speedy deletion nomination, and somebody else did too, so the tag was removed. Hopefully deletion is off the table now.
 * I personally think the tone of the draft is acceptable... nothing that can't be cleaned up later. In my opinion, there are two main problems with the draft right now:
 * 1) It may not pass our notability guidelines. Our notability guidelines (mainly WP:GNG, plus some additional rules specific to businesses called WP:NCORP) are how we figure out what is allowed to have an encyclopedia article. Keep in mind that, in practice, these guidelines are much stricter than they look. A quick spot check of some of your sources reveals problems. This one has no mention of Endeavor, and therefore isn't significant coverage. This one looks like a trade publication, or as some editors call it a "PR press mill", so probably not independent. This one sounds like it was written based off a press release (a trained evaluator can tell there's no independent analysis), so probably not independent.
 * 2) The draft is filled with details that are probably true but that quality sources probably wouldn't talk about. This introduces WP:WEIGHT problems.
 * Unfortunately, if notability cannot be passed, that will be a show stopper. All articles must pass notability. My advice would be to prepare yourself for the possibility that this company cannot pass notability. I see you have submitted the draft again, so we will see what happens. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) The draft is filled with details that are probably true but that quality sources probably wouldn't talk about. This introduces WP:WEIGHT problems.
 * Unfortunately, if notability cannot be passed, that will be a show stopper. All articles must pass notability. My advice would be to prepare yourself for the possibility that this company cannot pass notability. I see you have submitted the draft again, so we will see what happens. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if notability cannot be passed, that will be a show stopper. All articles must pass notability. My advice would be to prepare yourself for the possibility that this company cannot pass notability. I see you have submitted the draft again, so we will see what happens. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if notability cannot be passed, that will be a show stopper. All articles must pass notability. My advice would be to prepare yourself for the possibility that this company cannot pass notability. I see you have submitted the draft again, so we will see what happens. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - this is helpful insight. Regarding your point about the first link, Endeavor is not mentioned in that news article because it is about the Endeavor CEO leaving his former company, which happened before Endeavor was formed (but was essential to the timeline of the company, in my opinion). And Folio is indeed a trade publication ... but Folio itself has a Wikipedia page, so are they not considered a valid source? Many industries in B2B are primarily covered by trade publications.

Regarding the details that are "probably true" but "quality sources probably wouldn't talk about" - can you please specify what you mean? I am happy to edit or improve areas that you feel aren't properly supported. My only goal here is to publish a factual entry about Endeavor Business Media. I'm confused that the reviewers here don't feel that one of the largest B2B media companies is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but if the error is in the way I've written the article, I am willing and trying to improve it.

Abigail Christine (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello again. Since you said that Endeavor is "one of the largest B2B media companies", I went and checked all the sources in the draft. In my opinion, none of the sources in the draft pass WP:GNG. The Nashville Post ones are out since Endeavor has owned that company before, so not independent. And the rest of them are based off of press releases, with some of the telltale signs of press releases being short article length, heavy use of quotes, announcing rather than analyzing, and not mentioning anything negative. We receive training on how to spot press release based articles.
 * I see some of my fellow editors are coming down pretty hard on you. Personally, I appreciate that you followed our COI disclosure rules, which is why I've tried to be helpful. I think that working with us should be rewarded with us working with you in return.
 * I don't think that we're going to make progress unless you can find some books or newspaper articles (that aren't Nashville Post and aren't trade publications) that have multiple paragraphs discussing Endeavor. We need about 3 high quality sources like that to pass GNG. Has Forbes or Bloomberg or Wall Street Journal ever written an article about the company's history, or analyzed the company, or something like that? Has an author ever devoted a section or chapter of their book to Endeavor? That's the kind of thing we're looking for. If you look at our business articles, you'll find that most of them have 3 or more of those in their reference lists. Or if they don't, we eventually find out and nominate them for deletion.
 * In answer to your question about WP:WEIGHT, the easiest way to fix that is to find the quality sources mentioned above, and then rewrite the article only based on those sources. I and others can help you once you get to that stage. The main thing though is we need those 3 sources that pass our strict GNG criteria. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we're going to make progress unless you can find some books or newspaper articles (that aren't Nashville Post and aren't trade publications) that have multiple paragraphs discussing Endeavor. We need about 3 high quality sources like that to pass GNG. Has Forbes or Bloomberg or Wall Street Journal ever written an article about the company's history, or analyzed the company, or something like that? Has an author ever devoted a section or chapter of their book to Endeavor? That's the kind of thing we're looking for. If you look at our business articles, you'll find that most of them have 3 or more of those in their reference lists. Or if they don't, we eventually find out and nominate them for deletion.
 * In answer to your question about WP:WEIGHT, the easiest way to fix that is to find the quality sources mentioned above, and then rewrite the article only based on those sources. I and others can help you once you get to that stage. The main thing though is we need those 3 sources that pass our strict GNG criteria. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question about WP:WEIGHT, the easiest way to fix that is to find the quality sources mentioned above, and then rewrite the article only based on those sources. I and others can help you once you get to that stage. The main thing though is we need those 3 sources that pass our strict GNG criteria. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful feedback! As I've explained, the company grew very quickly and B2B media companies don't get as much mainstream media coverage as consumer-facing outlets do, which is why the sources cited are business publications or trade magazines like Folio. I agree coverage in WSJ or Washington Post would certainly help with my sources, but that coverage does not exist at this time. I did find an article in Forbes mentioning Endeavor's acquisition from Vendome: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonysilber/2018/12/26/b2b-publisher-vendome-media-group-is-shutting-its-doors/?sh=72df742b7d5c (To be honest, that article looks pretty similar to the ones I cited from Nashville Post and Nashville Business Journal - Forbes rewrites press releases as well.) Bloomberg has a company listing for Endeavor, but I don't think that would be considered notable: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/21320489

As I noted to another user, Endeavor never owned the Nashville Post - if you look at the link cited about the purchase of assets from SouthComm, the only assets purchased were the B2B publications/websites/events - the Nashville Post was never owned by Endeavor. It is now owned by FW Publishing, as SouthComm is no longer in business. I hope that clears up the issue of the Nashville Post being an independent source.

Thank you! Abigail Christine (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the reply. You're indeed correct that national newspapers can publish press releases and low quality articles too. WP:FORBESCON for example. I was just throwing out ideas. I will take a look at your new links and the old ones again soon when I am well rested, including Nashville Post. If Endeavor is a top company in your industry, there is likely to be something, somewhere, it just needs to be found. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

importScript
Hi. I noticed that you are still recommending the use of  to install user scripts. Note that this function is deprecated and should be replaced with  as in

or the to-be-subst'ed shorthand

Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * . Updated. Thanks for the tip. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. I see you used iusc instead of lusc. I'm not sure whether that was intentional, as also uses the deprecated  .  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thanks for the follow up. I decided to go with iusc because the code it generates is more concise, and also because most of the common.js files I looked at use importScript. I understand that it's technically deprecated, but I just really like concise code. I hope you don't mind. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I only noticed this and wanted to let you know on a general basis. 's removal might be far in the future, so it will not pose an issue for now.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 07:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Smell trining
Hello! Your submission of Smell training at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Alex2006 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
I would like to thank you for understanding my contribution to this project. This kind of attitude is the actual motivation for me to contribute more. I believe I can do more with this NPP right. By the way, that user who requested help at teahouse was a sock. Specifically saying, just a link in a chain of socks. I even have to took a wikibreak due to some mess caused by them when it affected me mentally. With the motivation of some other users, I came back quickly. See Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 01:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome. Bummer to hear that user was a sock, thanks for telling me. By the way, you may want to check out WP:DISCORD. It's a chat room and instant messaging program with several hundred Wikipedia editors on it. I like to invite people to Discord, as on-wiki can be businesslike, and the atmosphere on Discord is more social. If you join, feel free to message me and say hello. Good luck with your NPP permission. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. But the problem is that, I am completely dependent on my cell phone to make edits and my device is not that much efficient. If you notice my edits, you can see that while I make some long sentences, lot of typos and grammatic mistakes happens. Majority of then are due to the fact that my phone gets hanged so many times and sometimes I am not even able to open the browser itself. So I am forced to make changes in the se tences and loss plenty of time. I previously had discord while I used to play some multiplayer games which didnt had the option to audio chat. But it caused more chaos and I had to uninstall it. I will definetly try it after buying a new phone. Once again, thabks for the offer and happy editing:) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 02:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tribal Rage
Hello Novem Linguae!

Hope you are well. I'd first like to thank you for taking the time to review my first contribution to Wikipedia, this being the proposed draft for Draft:Tribal Rage. I was naturally disappointed to see that you had rejected my attempt. I do understand your feedback about adding additional citations on top of what I have already provided, however, this game is 23 years old and they are proving very difficult to find. TalonSoft is long since defunct and many of the review websites since the games release are now also offline. The game is now, according to my research, largely considered Abandonware and there does not appear to be anywhere it can be purchased, with the exception of a certain auction website. Nevertheless, I have managed to locate approximately three additional sources which I hope you'll find satisfactory in order to have the article approved. In the event that you're still unsatisfied by the sources, might I kindly ask for any suggestions you might be able to offer me to bring the draft up to standard?

Again, thank you for your time and assistance with this. FancyDonut (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the message. The CD Mag and GameSpot sources look good. Any chance you can find one more source? Need 3 to pass WP:GNG. Reviews on major websites written by staff writers or articles in magazines are great for meeting GNG. WikiProject Video Games has a list of sources that may help. Please leave me a message when you're ready for me to re-check. I think your article will get promoted, just need that third source. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your prompt response on this. I have actually managed to find another source for the article - Gaming Entertainment Monthly. I did try to find even more sources, but the only one I could locate was a scanned review from |"Reset magazine", written in German, which I didn't think would be appropriate. I'm hoping this will now be enough. What do you think? Kindly waiting your response. All the best - FancyDonut (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , I don't think the Gaming Entertainment Monthly source passes GNG. It is an "online magazine" and looks a lot like a blog calling itself a magazine. Might have WP:SELFPUBLISH problems. That Reset Magazine source looks good and in my opinion counts as your 3rd GNG source. Foreign language sources are fine, feel free to add those to the English Wikipedia when needed. Congratulations, I'll be promoting your article shortly. Great job. Thank you for taking the time to look for these sources. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you so much for your assistance with this! Can't tell you how pleased I am to see my first article online. Thanks once again, your help has been very valuable and is really appreciated. FancyDonut (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for leaving them this message. Although I doubt that they noticed my previous messages since they are using their sandbox as their talk page. -- Ashley yoursmile!  11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome. They draftified my CSD, so I figured I'd chime in. By the way, some of us hang out on WP:DISCORD (basically a chat room), and I always try to invite people. So consider this your invite :-) – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make sure to check it out. Thanks, . :) Ashley  yoursmile!  11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

In NPP School
...you learn to wait at least 15 minutes...not 6... ;-) -> CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , true, looks like it's mentioned at WP:NPP and I forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll wait longer in the future. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Two-faced Person
Hello. I saw your notes on this article. I looked into the term, and discovered it has quite an interesting history. What do you think now, notability-wise?--- Possibly (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello my friend. Thank you for your work on this article and for checking with me about this. The Diplomat source you added looks GNG passing to me. The others don't quite pass GNG, in my opinion. The article is not currently at my threshold to move it back, however I have no objections if you decide to move it back yourself. Hopefully you find this response acceptable. Happy editing my friend. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. I am also not exactly sure, but leaning to move it to article space. The 1960s essay where the literary critic was called two-faced by a then gang-of-four member cuts it for me. But I'm going to keep looking into it. Thanks again for your thoughts!--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft
hello my friend. Thank you for your work on the article Draft:Mohammed Ajam and for checking with me about. I will try to do my best but it was more fair others help to improve the article and complete it as the sources are in Arabic and it need more  specialty. it seems nobody will help to improve it in the draft. 06:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)
 * , hello friend. I made a post at WikiProject Arab World for you. Maybe they will be able to help. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you so much Novem Linguae.   04:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)

Just Want to Know
Why Deleted my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalsdamalsd (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello. It looks like you recreated articles that were previously deleted in WP:AFD. In the future, I recommend that you use the WP:AFC process. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok why that article was deleted previously. That article is malayalam movie. I love that movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalsdamalsd (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it looks like there was a week long deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Kalyanappittannu, and 4 people voted delete. The article does not meet our notability rules (WP:GNG). Notability determines what is allowed to have an article. Not everything can have an article. There needs to be multiple good sources such as newspaper articles and books. Else it is difficult to write a good encyclopedia article. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Talia Mar
Dexerto is unreliable per WP:VG/RS. SK2242 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , good info. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to New Page Patrol!

 * Welcome to our illustrious circle @Novem Linguae - looked to me probably the longest NPP School I have seen so far ;-) CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

rollback
Hi Novem Linguae. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ANovem_Linguae enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

A barnstar for you!

 * . You're very welcome. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * . It's been my pleasure. You're doing a great job and learning very fast. Keep up the good work. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

European Association for Biometrics
Hi, I have improved, sourced, would you mind to have a look if it's better? Regards, LukaszKatlewa (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello friend. I took a look at your new sources. Remember, we need multiple paragraphs of coverage in high quality sources like newspapers and books. The sources you added have issues with reliability and secondary coverage. WP:GNG talks about this a bit. I am duty bound to AFD this. It's nothing personal, all English Wikipedia articles get reviewed, and this one happened to be in my queue. Feel free to post in the AFD discussion. Take care. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing a “dead” user box
There is a non-existent user box on my profile. Can you please remove it for me? I don’t know how Filmmaker8306 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. . Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, friend Filmmaker8306 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Rodrigs
Hi! I've noticed that you have proposed the above article that I accepted in AfC for deletion. I don't entirely object the fact that it is not really that notable and I would not be against it if you go on with the PROD, but I just want to tell you I have approved the article based on the Ottawa Business Journal source and I find the source acceptable since it talks about him and they are not just passing mentions. Nevertheless, I agree that the sources you named are not that reliable. Any thoughts? Thanks and happy editing! WikiAviator talk 02:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * . Hey there. Thanks for the comment. I agree that the Ottawa Business Journal source is the best source currently in the article. Assuming that one is independent enough, and assuming the other two are not, then we are short of three GNG passing sources. I have no objections if you or anybody removes the prod. However I am confident enough in this one that if the prod is removed, I'd probably AFD it. Nothing personal, it was just in the NPP queue and I happened to run across it. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll add that I think Toronto.com and CBC News are reliable and are significant coverage. My issue is 100% with the "independence" aspect of WP:GNG. I was taught that an article that is mostly quotes is not independent enough to pass that part of GNG. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the CBC source, it returned with a 404. For the Ottawa one, although it is mostly quotes, it is still counted as "significant coverage" since there are still some descriptions. I think this a borderline case and I find it hard to decide too. Perhaps I will remove the PROD and you can propose it for AfD to get a better picture of community consensus. Thanks! :) WikiAviator  talk 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm ready for my close-up
Draft:Tubby Raskin --2603:7000:2143:8500:CBB:4CD4:28D5:435D (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I evaluated the draft for you. Hope it helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Help me for improving Vikram Sachora page.
Hey Novem Linguae, Please help me for improving Draft: Vikram_Sachora Page. GyaniBandaSD (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I reviewed your draft. . Hope it helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * , thank you very much. By the way, I chuckled after reading your name, seeing your userpage's background color, seeing multiple pictures of you in blue suits, then finally running across this userbox at the bottom.




 * The perfect userbox for you :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Pound Sterling Article
31.216.120.161 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Hello Novem, I received a message that the added link to the article Pound sterling is not appropriate so it was removed. Please have a look again. I would like to add a reference to the word "Cable" it is a term used in currency trading so the hyperlink redirects to a financial blog that explains it and gives more examples of such jargon words. Please elaborate on why the reference and links were removed. See the link again attached: https://www.orbex.com/blog/en/2016/05/this-is-how-professional-forex-trades-speak31.216.120.161 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Thansk for the note. Couple of issues with your edit. . 1) We should not put external links in the article body, only in the "External links" section at the bottom. 2) We should not put external links, Wikilinks, or references in section headings. That goes against our normal article formatting style. 3) We should not use blogs as they are WP:SELFPUBLISH and not a reliable source. Reliable sources are things like newspapers and books. Here's a list to give you an idea. WP:RSPSOURCES. Hope that helps. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for reaching back. I understand that we cannot put citations on the titles. Would you mind elaborating on how it is different to make references 72 and 76 as already in the Pound sterling article, that redirects to OANDA, a broker as well? The blog that I add links to is written by experts in their field that were awarded as Best Research Team. For more information, you can see their biographies. Please mind that the same were cites in media as Bloomberg, etc. so I do believe that the information will be accurate and relevant for the Wikipedia audience. Thank you for your consideration. 213.140.205.158 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello friend. I'm not seeing anything obvious in Google News searches that indicates that Adrian Filip is regarded as an expert in his industry. There is an "expert" exception to WP:SELFPUBLISH, but it used rarely, and needs to be supported by evidence. The Oanda citation is to data, which is better than a blog, but might also need to be replaced. Anyway, just my advice. Take care. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * , thanks for the cookie my friend. No rush. I plan to submit pull requests for some of these, once I finish up some other tech projects I'm working on such as User:NovemBot. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

GNG
Hi. GNG requires "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It does not require "multiple" (not three) sources, of three paragraphs each. There is a great difference between what GNG requires in this regard, and your personal view. --2603:7000:2143:8500:E859:840:B60B:D974 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks — copyright issue
Thank you for your fix... any closeness on Rosamond's page was unintentional, but I will certainly be more careful! Johnshade2 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

AfC

 * , thank you very much. You're doing an excellent job yourself. I believe you have the most AFC reviews within the last 30 days. Great job! – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Re My "Bullying" Text, a Thanks for Commenting
Ref Editor_assistance/Requests#Harassment%2C_Bullying%2C_Uncivil_Commentary%3A_Parsecboy

First, please accept my apologies for the long time to respond, but I've had some things go on. I just wanted to thank you for taking time to look in on what I posted, and will get back to you. Don't want you to think you wasted your time. I'm kind of a noob and not a great programmer, so it took me a while to figure out how to do the "diff" link. Will get back and interested in what you think. Take care.

Brucelucier (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Smell training
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 12:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for your global Visual Editor!

&#8213; Qwerfjkl &#124;&#9993;  21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , you're very welcome. Have a great day :-) – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverted change
Hi, is "Early 2021" a better grammar ?

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parminous (talk • contribs)


 * . Hey there. . I'd recommend changing it to: In January 2021, the chair of the EU Tax Matters Subcommittee Paul Tang criticised the list for not including "renowned tax havens" such as Jersey. Please note the two spots I bolded. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Bless you for your participation in my english grammar overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parminous (talk • contribs)