User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

AfC notification: Draft:Parental rights movement has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Parental rights movement. Thanks! Qcne (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parental rights movement has been accepted

Parental rights movement, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the 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!

Qcne (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Parental rights movement has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Parental rights movement. Thanks! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 17:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Notcharizard: I appreciate your comments on my draft (thanks for your note on prose, I worked hard with the NPOV). I've never created an AfC submission before, so apologies if this is not the typical response method.

About your comments, do I address them and then reply to you under then comments on the draft page, or do I open a thread in the talk page? What if I had further questions about your comments before making changes? Namely, I agree that the history section is probably longer than necessary, given the overall length of the article, I'm just not sure which parts to slim down on. Thanks, MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been accepted, but in future responding on your talk page like this is, or using the draft's talk page, are both fine :) Also congrats on it being published, I think it's not too common for a person's first AfC to be accepted (and so quickly) so you should feel proud! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 06:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Parental rights movement for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parental rights movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental rights movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Zenomonoz (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Westall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reepham. 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) 06:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page 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 or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• 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, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

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. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 NPP Backlog Drive sign up

Hello! I noticed that you are signed up for the October 2023 NPP Backlog Drive. However, you're going to be unable to participate if you do not have the New Page Reviewer permission. If you are still interested in participating in the backlog drive, then I encourage you to request the permission at WP:PERM/NPR. I have, for the moment, removed you from the participants list as you not able to participate at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Josh! I've received the permissions! Looking forward to helping out! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia: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 trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus; I'm curious which source you used to verify that the birth date was correct before restoring this edit?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ponyo: I wasn't looking for a citation. I'm not connected to the article; I was reverting a previous edit from an IP user that lacked an edit summary as per the WP:BRD cycle. I did noticed a lack of citation in the article about a birth place/date, so that's why I removed the month and date in my revision.

If you'd like to continue this discussion, I've since created a section on the article's talk page to continue the discussion and include other editors on the consensus building. Thanks! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Lacking an edit summary is not a reason to revert an edit; did you notice that your revert also lacked an edit summary? What you did in that edit was to restore unsourced personal information to a BLP, which is in effect restoring a BLP violation. If an editor removes content from a BLP, please don't just restore such edits without actually taking into account what it is you're restoring. This is especially important given the advance permissions HJ Mitchell has showered you with below.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I'll be sure to be more careful about restoring information on BLP articles in the future. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I did see this thread before I decided to grant the permissions (though I missed just how recent it was). Marcus, you seem like a sensible editor who can take on board feedback so I strongly recommend you listen to what Ponyo has to say. I can't remember the las time I disagreed with her and we've both been doing this for a lot of years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you do very good work, Marcus, so I hope this is taken as constructive criticism as intended. There are many important policies on Wikipedia, but WP:BLP is of the utmost importance as there is the possibility of doing real damage to real people if we're not vigilant in enforcing it. When doing vandalism patrol and reviewing pending changes it's always important to take a good look at what's being added or removed and whether the sourcing (or lack thereof) supports the edit instead of worrying about minor issues (such as whether an edit summary is used). It takes a bit more time but you will ultimately become a much better and well-rounded editor for the effort. Cheers, -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ponyo and HJ Mitchell: just in case my response above was missed; I do appreciate the guidance and plan to be more diligent and careful about BLP in the future. Thanks for taking the time to clarify and explain with constructive criticism. My goal, of course, is to be a better editor and—in turn—better Wikipedia. Hopefully when it comes time to renew the userrights as below, you'll both find that I've made positive and helpful contributions to the project.

Thanks, MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I expect that will be the case; happy editing!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Copypaste tag on Scotiabank Wednesday Night Hockey

Hi, and thanks for keeping an eye out for copyright violations! However, before tagging new articles for copyvio, please first check the talk page/page history to see if content from a different article was incorporated. Sometimes, this could be the cause of copyvio hits, as it's not uncommon for other websites to mirror Wikipedia. In this case, the website has a line at the bottom that says: Source of article: Wikipedia. Regardless, if you're unsure it's better to tag, rather safe than sorry. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh, of course! Embarrassed I missed this. Thanks! MicrobiologyMarcus ^{petri dish•growths} 21:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Geo Barents IMO 9252503 at port 2022.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Geo Barents IMO 9252503 at port 2022.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been corrected. Improperly just wrote out the license instead of using the {{cc-by-2.0}} tag. MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 14:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Umapati Dhara

In my view this was an unlikely candidate for draftification. As an accepted AFCV submission WP:DRAFTIFY does allow it, but it is unusual. Generally, though your action was valid, the destination for it might better have been AfD. Obviously you picked it up while patrolling. I have no objection to the destination, am just expressing mild surprise. It was a very borderline acceptance, performed in accordance with AFC guidelines, and obviously one that you feel was on the wrong side of the border. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Timtrent: interesting. I guess my bias is to preserve work that shows potential but still needs heavy (heavy, heavy) work - yeah I definetly would've been on the other side of the border. Out of curiousty, just so I understand where you're coming from with this, would you have suggested !delete at AfD? MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

When I've accepted a draft I am steadfastly neutral.

This person is inherently notable, IIRC, an elected politician, so would, or should, be kept at AfD. It should also be ripped apart!

Not going to undo your draftification, but I will suggest that it will probably just wither on the vine, unedited. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, no. Not elected! But he is a significant and notable person of his era. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I will say, I was just being bold, I have no problem if my move were to be reverted and a proper discussion begins at AfD. MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Atelophobia

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus,

Current guidelines hold that draftification is only suitable for newly created articles or as the result of an AFD discussion. This articles was 12 years old and wasn't part of an AFD discussion so it was improperly moved to Draft space. Please check out the page history before moving an article from main space to Draft space and make sure it isn't older than 90 days old. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz, that's my bad, my apologies. Thanks for the heads up, I've taken the time to re-read the Draftify guidelines and in the future I'll be sure to check out the page histories more closely. MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 02:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DESeq2 has been accepted

DESeq2, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the 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!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:International Functional Fitness Federation

Hey, could you walk me through your review/reasoning for moving Draft:International Functional Fitness Federation into mainspace? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm similarly puzzled by your decision at Battle of the Ravi Ford‎ and would appreciate hearing your perspective. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Rosguill: first: for the Draft:International Functional Fitness Federation I remember checking the references added between the previous review and current submission and thinking that the organization probably had established notability, and then did a quick google news search and saw could've sworn I saw an article from the CBC so I was felt good about accepting that one. I remember seeing a comment with NPOV concerns I thought the recent citations addressed them. Then I think I did some quick formatting to make it acceptable to mainspace and accepted it. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking for that CBC article and I've come across [1] so I'll be honest now I think this might've slipped through. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the Ravi Ford looked more straightforward to me. I thought the article did an adequate job with citations and, while it might be a stub, I thought it was acceptable for mainspace. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this--I think your reasoning makes sense. For Ravi Ford, were you able to check the accessible source to confirm that it discussed the subject in question? When I was looking at it I had failed to find the relevant text describing the event, although the link has now since been corrected by the initial editor. N.b., for historical articles about India, pre-1947 sources, including more recent reprints of the same, are typically treated as less-than-reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Marcello Sparzo

Hi Marcus, thank you for your review, it was right on point. When one reads and rereads a text, everything seems fine, then a piece of advice comes along, and the possible improvements become immediately evident. Ironically, the text was already divided into well-separated sections, but indeed, the titles were missing. Any other suggestion? Do you think the titles are appropriate and well written? I am ok with English but it's clearly not my mother tongue so any help is always appreciated. Please feel free to edit anything if you have any idea! Thank you ;-) --teatroge (dm) 20:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Well done on the article. Everything looks good now, I’ll go ahead and take off the cleanup tags. I’ll take a closer look at the prose, titles, and structure when I have a minute. Best, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 21:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Marcus. See you online. --teatroge (dm) 21:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeds (company)

Why did you put speedy deletion nomination to the page, which resulted in the deletion? I already cited numerous sources from national media proving that Seeds was a notable company. Seedy2122 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The Seeds (company) page made no attempt at demonstrating notability and contained only unambiguous advertising and promotion. As such, it met the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically WP:G11.

I invite you to review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as well as WP:SECONDARY for what constitutes acceptable references to organizations. Remember, passing references to companies are not acceptable, the coverage in the secondary sources needs to be about the subject of the article.

Lastly, because you have indicated you have a WP:COI, you should submit any new articles for creation through the WP:AfC process, as per the Wikipedia policy at WP:COIEDIT, where reviewers will make determinations about whether your article is ready for mainspace. There, they can also help you in drafting an acceptable article and provide feedback about what your article requires to make it acceptable for Wikipedia. There is no worry about deletion there; with some caveats, articles in the draft space can continue to be worked on. You can start your article here, using the Article Wizard tool. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 13:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 World Series

In case you miss it, 2023 World Series is now ready for Draft:2023 World Series to be accepted. Sam Walton (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, much appreciated! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Low Yok Lin

The technical request made for this article has been declined as WP:DRAFTIFY states 3b. There is no assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, such as a clear statement to that effect in the edit history, or on the talk page, or a revert of a previous draftification. The proper venue would be WP:AFD or WP:PROD. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. Looks like there is healthy discussion and feedback occurring right now for the article's author at the AfD process. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Declining Draft:2023 International Criminal Court judges election

Hello. Considering the fact that there are previous pages on the same topic, such as 2015 International Criminal Court judges election with similar sources I do not believe it is fair to decline this one. 109.175.166.58 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Upon reviewing those now, I'm not sure I would personally consider these pages suitable for Wikipedia either. But I can accept when I am wrong: I would invite you to resubmit the article in its current form and let another editor review it, I won't decline it. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 19:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the opportunity. 109.175.166.58 (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello MicrobiologyMarcus:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

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

There is a backlog of over 900 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A General Theory of Violence

Thank you for the feedback and guidance on the article Draft:A General Theory of Violence. I have reworked the article taking into account your feedback, and I have tried to ensure that the article follows the requirements and quality standards for Wikipedia articles. Grateful if you can review the article and let me know if it can be published. Also, one question: Is it possible to change the article's title to "The General Theory of Violence" (instead of "A General Theory of Violence")? Thank you. Best, Isaac Griberg (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Griberg: I'm going through the citations on your new draft and I'm having a hard time finding a reliable and secondary source that discusses the subject of the article, "general theory of violence." A google shcolar search shows that there might be more primary sources that discuss this subject, which are okay to be used in the article (see the policy at WP:Primary) but there needs to be coverage of the subject of the article to establish the subject as a topic of a primary article on Wikipedia. Remember that original research is not allowed on this project.

On the topic of the article name, yes it is possible to rename the article, but consider Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) and see if any other name would work, possibly General theory of violence (notice the sentence case in titles). See how this is used at Self-control theory of crime. As an aside, that is a good example demonstrating how an article describing a physiology theory is written. Other articles that reverse the title structure include General strain theory or Systems theory. In general, the rule is to use the common name when creating an article title, but we also strive to be concise.

Happy editing, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Discord invite

Hey there. Congrats on being on the backlog drive leaderboard. I really appreciate you helping out at NPP. If you want to hang out with other NPPs, consider joining us on the NPP Discord. Discord is live text chat software that can be really fun. If not no worries. Thanks and see you around :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

National College and University Rankings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus, and thanks a lot for reviewing the article Draft:National college and university rankings. I totally agree with you that the article lack proper references, but I think you have to compare it to the current situation and what I am trying to do. There is a published article 'College and university rankings'. I want to split that into one article for international rankings ('International university rankings') and one for national rankings (the one you just reviewed), and make the original article much smaller, pointing to the two other articles. I have spent a lot of time on the article for international rankings, adding a lot of references. It is not perfect, but I believe that it is a lot better than the current situation. So, while it is true that 'National College and University Rankings' lacks a lot of references, that is just a status quo. It lacks these references today as well, only under another article name. Fitzgunnar (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Fitzgunnar: I'd caution against the use of WP:WHATABOUTISM, it's not a great reason to publish an article to mainspace. If anything, uncited statements on the other article should be cited, or challenged and removed as well. I agree that the other article is a long and difficult read, but that's no argument for adding more stuff requiring cleanup to the mainspace.

In regards to this article in particular, I do find some largely concerning sections of text that go uncited, like I said in my review. Take, for example, in § Canada, this factual statement "However, the majority of Canada's institutions, including the best-known, are publicly funded." should have a citation to a proper reliable and secondary source; or if it is an opinion, requires more context. However, things like this can't be said in Wikivoice without proper inline citations. This is just one example. There are a couple sections like this that go largely uncited or have no citations at all, § France is another.

In this case, if there are no citations and you just have a rush to get a list of things to the mainspace, I suggest you review the policy "What Wikipedia is not." That's my reason for declining your article.

I do hope you continue to improve it and resubmit once it is ready, I think it has the potential to be a valuable article in due time. All the best, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Whataboutism :-). I would not describe my argument like that, but perhaps people who use whataboutism never do.

I see your point, but _my_ point is that my articles are still an improvement of the current situation. The suggested article 'National College and University Rankings' consists almost exclusively of material from the current article 'College and University Rankings', and the idea is to remove that material from that article. So I don't add more stuff requiring cleanup, I simply move it.

However, I am new to writing Wikipedia articles, and I am eager to learn. Perhaps I am being too respectful to the previous writers. I have been careful not to remove stuff that others put in the original article. Do you suggest I remove more stuff from the original article? Or, even better: Could I simply remove the article 'College and university rankings' and write a new one about International University Rankings, where I only include material I have references for? Or what would you suggest I do?

My main problem is that the current article is essentially a marketing page for one company, QS. I don't know and don't care very much about *national* rankings, so I can't improve that section very much, but I do know a lot about international rankings, and I can definitely make that part better.

All the best, MagnusMG Fitzgunnar (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Fitzgunnar: that all sounds very valid, and I do see the talk section at Talk:College and university rankings § Splitting proposal and like the other editor mentioned there, if it is a true split of the article, the AfC process isn't the best place for it. As I read it, the !oppose vote in the discussion is opposed to the split as written in the draft, but I could be misinterpreting that. Seeing as you are an autoconfirmed user, you are able to create pages on the mainspace.

My suggestion, but feel free to discuss this with another editor, would be to create two pages of content only copied from the current article. Place the appropriate writing in each article, whether it be national and international, and attribute appropriately by writing "content merged from Example article" in the changes summary, as described in WP:MERGETEXT. From there, I would go about making the appropriate changes to all three articles, removing the content from the main article that has been copied, you could even place a tag yourself by adding {{Advert}} or {{POV}} atop the articles you think are problematic and remove content you think only serves to promote a specific company.

Be bold; remember, no one owns Wikipedia anymore than you or I do. But if you do get reverted, remember to take it to the talk page as per WP:BRD. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As I write all this out, I realize the correct policy has already been outlined in WP:CORRECTSPLIT, so follow that and then go on from there improving all three articles! Happy editing! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on 07:46:00, 3 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Aaoe

• Aaoe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maher Jarmakani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you point me to the actual part of the article that does not meet Wikipedia's standard for inline citations?

Agatha Emina 07:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Aaoe: as I mentioned in the comment of the review: there are outstanding {{citation needed}} tags, and all information about a biography of a living person must be cited, per the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons—this includes birthdates, which I was not able to verify in any of your first three inline citations that surround that info. Best, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ossett RUFC - Rejection

Hi,

Not sure what more we can physically submit to get this over the line? We have links directing to our league structure on the main England RFU website (RFU being the governing body for all rugby in England). Have direct news articles about our recent promotion and we have our established website?

Please do help me in understanding what more is required?

Thanks WikiCreator2023 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WikiCreator2023: who is "we"? Just want to clarify that there is only one individual running the account and not a group, as required by Wikipedia policy and described at WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"We" as in the club (on behalf of) only myself has access to this account. I have re-written the article now from the club website with some adaptations - hopefully this suits more?

Thanks WikiCreator2023 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You've reverted previous content that was removed as it was copyrighted content that closely matches content from an exterior source. The article cannot exist on Wikipedia with that content. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

After many hours of learning Wiki it is a shame this has been marked for deletion. The article that you're referring to as copyright is actually text that is written on our main club website (www.ossettrugby.co.uk) and under the information and history section. The article has copied our original content so fail to see how this can the be copyright against the club itself?

As discussed I have edited the text but I struggle to see how I am to mention years leagues, and winning scores without it being closed as copyright? I have tired to re-write word for word and would honestly appreciate help to make sure hours of my effort does not get deleted. WikiCreator2023 (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a copyvio issue because you are adding it from content hosted by the club (Wikipedia cannot establish that you are a representative of the club and you should not advertise yourself as such without first properly verifying per policy) to content hosted by and published by Wikipedia. You cannot treat a Wikipedia page about a subject as property of the subject. Because that ownership is not transferable, any content copied—as you mention at The article has copied our original content—is a copyright violation that cannot exist on Wikipedia. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am just struggling to see how I upload the club's history then. If I re-write the paragraphs but the dates and scores stay the same (as these are facts) would this be suffice?

As said it's difficult to write the club history on the Wiki page without it hitting the same markers as the articles you have marked for copyright. So really unsure what to do. If re-writing is enough I shall look to do so, as said though the scores would stay the same, as would dates and the cup/trophy titles? WikiCreator2023 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not the dates and facts that are the issue, it is the reuse of content following the same style and tone as the original source. If the original source can be published with open licenses, then you are free to reuse the text with some restrictions, the policy for that is here. The policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights is the source for what is and isn't permitted on Wikipedia; further, you may also find this explanatory essay may help explain some of the issues you are finding here: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Something that we haven't addressed is that the source for this material—as outlined in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing at Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy and referred to you above as being on the club website—is that the club's website is not a reliable and secondary source for establishing notability or for unbiased neutral point of view disputes of facts, and all statements made in the article will need inline citations to secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page 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 or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• 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, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

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. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:David Tolchinsky

Hello!

I appreciate your review of my article, and thanks for your hard work! Because I couldn't find incredibly reliable sources in terms of Tolchinsky's birthdate, I went ahead and just removed it. In general, I tried to trim up some of the information without secondary sources in that section so that what's said is directly relevant to what the sources confirm.

I just hoped to run it by you and see if you had any additional comments and/or suggestions, as well as whether my edits resolved the issues. Thanks again for your feedback! :) Mrcardon (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Mrcardon: that's fine, it's for the best. The point of requiring citations for BLP is if we can't cite it, it doesn't belong.

Something minor: the MOS asks that film names be given in italics. But that's simple copy editing, I think as it exists now, the article should be acceptable for mainspace. Feel free to resubmit it now, there's an active backlog drive going on so it will probably be reviewed quickly.

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Mississippi Blues (film)

Actually it was created by @Mooonswimmer. FloridayArmy expanded it a bit, submitted it then it was declined. Mooon improved it then moved it mainspace so no, this was not a "FloridaArmy special". S0091 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @S0091: Yeah, you're right. My apologies if that came across as mean, it's not what I intented. I'd be happy to remove that comment from the closure if its okay with you. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 20:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It did come across to me as mean spirited but I will leave it up you about the striking given its your edit history. I mean, there is a legitimate reason FA is under restrictions but in this instance it had nothing to do with that. Also, there is no reason for me to think you are generally a mean spirited editor/person. S0091 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

European Seniors' Union.

Hello Marcus, Thank you for reviewing my article. I have been active on the Dutch Wikipedia for years, but this is my first article in English, where apparently not quite the same rules apply. I agree that it may have been a bit too promotional for this organization and I also understand that you deleted part of it. As for the citations, I have tried to adapt them to the English rules. Hopefully they now comply and I hope that you can cancel your remarks. If not, I would like some further explanations about what is actually wrong with what I write. Thank you in advance! Luxil (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Luxil: I've removed the advert tag but applied the primary sources tag. The prose has been improved, provided that for each of the factual statements in the text, there is an accompanying inline citation to a source. Generally, with some exceptions, for large paragraphs that talk about multiple pieces of related but separate information, you need inline citations to each fact or statement of information and not just a citation at the of the paragraph. This is flexible if all the information comes from the same source, but inline citations help demonstrate WP:Verifiability for articles on the project.

I added the primary sources tag because the article needs citations to secondary sources about the subject of the article. This will assist in demonstrating the subject of the article meets notability for organizations. As the way the article stands, it would be an okay article as the summary of the group and its history of advocacy, but the content of the article must be previously covered by secondary sources and not just a collection of information that can be found on the company's website. A simple google search or google news search is a great place to start, and non-English sources are okay to use. If you need any more help, I'm happy to answer more questions. Best, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 14:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marcus,

Thank you for your subsequent comments on my article. In the meantime, at your request, I have added a number of non-primary links, which gives the article a more widely supported information background. I hope that I have met the additional conditions that were set.

I remain open to further suggestions. Best regards! Luxil (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marcus, It has now been a week since I made the final edits to my article, in line with your previous comments. Since then I have not received any response from you. Can I assume that silence here means agreement? In that case can you remove the issue warnings please? Luxil (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think the issues have been addressed. See the actual text of the tag "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources." As I mentioned earlier, this will help establish notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of FRET (Software)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have created page Fret (software). This very useful software. But it is purposed for speedy deletion. Can you please make it live? Although I am not developerif this software I just want to help people to aware about this software. مکرم (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's deletion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FRET (Software) where you may partake in the discussion there and voice your opinion on why the article should remain. Also, I am not the one who nominated it for deletion, you may discuss with the editor who placed the tag, but again, the discussion needs to happen at the AfD discussion page. Not here. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 19:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A General Theory of Violence

Hi Marcus! Thanks again for the feedback on the draft article A General Theory of Violence. There is a reference to the theory of violence in University of Lucerne's teaching material, where it is also referred to as "A General Theory of Violence." I believe this should help to justify the creation of the article per Wikipedia's guidelines as it's a reference to secondary sources, i.e. not original research. I'd be grateful if you could help to re-submit the article for publication as I'm not sure how to do this (there's no option to do so when making edits to the article). While adding the new reference to the article, I left the following comment and flagged it as a minor edit: "Added new reference (the first reference) to teaching material provided by the University of Lucerne, citing the theory of violence as a general theory of violence. This is to address Goldsztajn's point regarding Wikipedia not publishing original research." Thank you very much for your advice. Best, Isaac Griberg (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Griberg: Going through the references, I was not able to find reliable sources that discuss the topic. Are there actual university textbooks that discuss the subject of the article in dept, not passing mentions to research or other publications that talk about the subject? Despite them coming from university websites, this is not the kind of reliable and secondary source that counts as suitable for proper citation. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 20:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Bell Bank - COI tag (November 2023)

Hi Marcus! Thanks for your feedback on Bell Bank. I'm following up from a message I had left asking where in the article can neutral wording be included to alleviate COI concerns. I understand the photo was of concern, which has been removed. Additionally, some updates/edits has been requested to be changed via Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Paid under the COI tag discussion. What suggestions or advice do you have in having the COI tag removed? Thanks for all your help. WikiWriter1005 (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Responded at Special:Diff/1187695019. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

With was of page no do not be if you when in do you have has been the your tag from a was of the having thanks for your will be l had made umber what some the be can you with the November 2023 of 99.129.39.221 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Western United States

Trying to improve this page 2600:1702:5D45:B810:6F:BD56:1D4D:7233 (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Fishes (The Bear)

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus,

You'll find that admins patrolling CSD categories are quicker to take action if you tag pages like this as CSD G6 MOVE requests and link to the page you would like to be moved to the main space title. Then admins can quickly see the other page and make a judgment on whether or not this move is appropriate. Then they can move the page and delete the old page at the article page title in one quick edit. Just a suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, makes sense. As always, appreciate the guidance. Thanks @Liz! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ischyropsalidoidea

Dear MicrobiologyMarcus,

I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at the expansion i've just made onto the taxon page for "Ischyropsalidoidea". You had moved it to draft section - and it seems to now need review before can become online. Perhaps someone else has done that by the time you read this, but i'm not optimistic. I recognise that i'd made just a simplistic outline without references, but for context i was then building cross-links to that basic framework into several other pages and websites simultaneously. You moved it to draft within about 30 mins after i'd put those bare bones online, and I was coming back to add further content after reformatting references for wiki etc. In future, i'd ask that you please consider how long such a 'stub' are left unattended before pushing those like it away into draft - just a few minutes after being created seems unreasonable. It's enough challenge with bots jumping in after just a few minutes without experienced users doing the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 6:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sjl197: looks like to article has been reviewed and moved out of draftspace by the time I had to opportunity to review it. In regards to your claims to my draftifying your article, I hadn't moved the draft within about 30 minutes as you claim. The page history with edit summaries shows that I added the {{Unreferenced}} tag 16 minutes after your last minor revision and then moved the page to draft space 74 minutes after that, well outside the minimum timeline specified by the WP:DRAFTIFY policy.

In the future, because you are an autoconfirmed user (and extended confirmed user), you are able to move articles out of the draftspace yourself (provided there isn't an article or redirect at the target location). You are also able to dispute a draftify, and move it immediately back out to mainspace if you wish. But keep in mind that articles that remain in the mainspace without citations may be otherwise deleted.

I can appreciate the difficulty in writing a new article and while I understand that there are no deadlines, we must still follow the verifiability policy and as such, all articles on the mainspace must have citations to reliable and secondary sources. As laid out in the deadline essay above, there is no rush to complete the article and I would remind you that you are free to draft articles in the draftspace or your sandbox, prior to moving to mainspace.

Regards and happy editing, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Shay Kanot for deletion

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

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

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)