User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Reviewing Draft:Mitchell_Green

Hello! You reviewed my draft page Draft:Mitchell_Green a few days ago, suggesting that I add more verifiable sources. I did add them now. Thanks for your help! Would you be able to have a quick look at it and tell me if you think that now it's ok, before I resubmit it?

--Asdrubalissimo (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Asdrubalissimo: without reviewing it in any real detail, I would say that I would probably have to decline it again. Notability for academics can rise either via the general WP:GNG route, which requires significant coverage in independent secondary sources (which this draft does not have), or via the WP:NACADEMIC route, which requires significant career achievements (which the person in question may or may not have, but they're at least not immediately obvious). All I can suggest is, you either continue working on this to show notability by either of the two means; or submit it now and hope that another reviewer accepts it. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Thank you, this is very helpful feedback. Concerning the WP:NACADEMIC route: I checked the requirements for academics, and I am a bit confused by your comment. You have an entry on Dorit Bar-On, who works in the same Department as Green, but is much less influential, both in terms of output (she published about half as much as Green) and in terms of impact (her work is cited less than half than Green's). Both numbers can be checked via the Web of Science links that I attach. Bar-on has worked for TV and done some appearances on public broadcasts, but not as a famous person (she was interviewing, not being interviewed, and never got famous for this job). So I assume that the reason she has a page is because she meet the first criterion (impact for the discipline), but then why would not Green meet it? I added Web of Science references to the Green article to make all this more obvious. I hope you agree that, if Bar-on meets the crieria, then also Green does. I work in this field, and I think that it is undeniable that the impact of his research dwarves that of many other philosophers who have a dedicated page on this website. Asdrubalissimo (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hortto Kaalo has been accepted

Hortto Kaalo, 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 help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230 Online events: New: Women in the Ancient World | British Overseas Territories Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (second month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello!

I've just submitted an article and made the changes to it that were requested by you. Let me know if anything else needs to be completed on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattab1234 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Brenfarrell/sandbox,

Hi,

Thanks for reviewing my article on British Seniors Funeral Costs Report. I am an employee of Neilson Financial Services, who own British Seniors. I'm attempting to create a page for the research we have carried out on Funeral Costs in the U.K. and not so much our own company. We noticed that Sunlife already have the same live on their page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunLife) so we are trying to replicate with stats. from our own work.

Regarding the COI from a few months ago, I had responded to that editor with the same declaration on their talk page.

Should I resubmit the article using the below template?

{{Connected contributor|User1=Brenfarrell |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

Brenfarrell (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Brenfarrell: thanks for your reply. I didn't know you had already responded, and this is because you did so on the user talk page of the editor who queried this before. For this reasons it's better if you do one or both (my preference is for both) of the following, as explained in more detail at WP:DISCLOSE:

1. Place the 'connected distributor' template you're showing above on the talk page of; and/or
2. Place a COI userbox on your own user page for

...every article/draft that you have a COI with. These are the standard locations, and most editors looking for COI disclosure will routinely check one or the other. This will then save you having to reply to the same query over and over again.

You will also have to separately disclose the fact that you are being paid for your editing, as an employee of the organisation.

And finally just to note that as a paid editor, you are not allowed to publish the article directly, you must go through the AfC review process. I'm only mentioning this so you're aware, and don't inadvertently get into trouble trying to bypass the process.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

That's actually a great help thank you very much. I wasn't aware of this at all but I will look more into it now. So it is actually possible (although difficult) to get company research published and live on Wikipedia but it must be through the AFC process?

Thanks a million.

Brenfarrell (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have deleted the research content on the SunLife article as it was primary sourced and promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Check

Gus1182 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC) DaxServer left you a message, please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Other_Me_(2022_film)

Re: Draft:Washington University College of Medicine

I am not sure how I noticed this article you draftified, but was intrigued enough to do some research. George Washington University exists in Washington, DC. Washington University in St. Louis exists in St. Louis. Both have schools of medicine. The Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions (CAAM-HP) lists four schools of medicine in St. Lucia; two decertified, two on probation—none of the four have a name similar to 'Washington University College of Medicine'. I did find several sites that quote the Wikipedia 'Washington University College of Medicine' that also include how to locate the article in draft space. The University of Queensland St Lucia campus pops up but is located in a Brisbane suburb.

Since there are no citations that even mention the title of the article, I consider the article subject at best a promotional of a yet to exist educational, for-profit institution. And there are two draft articles for the same subject: Draft:Washington University College of Medicine and Draft:Washington University College of Medicine (WUCM).

Thanks for your efforts to maintain standards for Wikipedia. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC) —

@Neonorange: I suspect it might refer to this, which seems to have been some sort of a joint venture with Washington Adventist University with a campus in St Lucia. I said to the creating editor that if they want to write about it, they need to redo the existing draft completely (including getting the institution's name right!), but never heard back. Interesting to see there's another draft in the system (which is a year older, even). It's all very strange. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Samo Salamon

Hi,

you reviewed the draft page for Samo Salamon and declined it stating that the sources are not enough. I disagree, all the sources are added are highly important in the area of jazz - All About Jazz, Citizen Jazz, Jazz Views, Allmusic, Jazziz, Penguin Guide to Jazz!!

Salamon has been ranked among the best composers and jazz guitarists by the Penguin Guide to Jazz as well as in all major jazz publications and deserves an entry...

kind regards, jules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesjules864 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Julesjules864: don't you think it's a little bit disingenuous that you first add more sources and citations to Draft:Samo Salamon, and only then come and tell me you disagree with my review? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

hi, oh I apologize if it came through like this...didn't mean to...I added 17 reliable secondary sources - respected jazz magazines from all over the world (from Allaboutjazz, Jazziz, Jazz Views) that featured the portraits and music of Salamon...I thought that would be ok...please let me know. tx a lot! just a fan of the music! Julesjules864 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ignore

Gus1182 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Why you ignore me? its not good, i know you are very busy but i'm busy too and please check my two articles, in one I added biographical 2 sources in external links and on second DaxServer leave you a meesage,

please check once again DoubleGrazing. thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Other_Me_(2022_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giga_Agladze

@Gus1182:: I don't know why you're chasing me on this; there are over 3,000 others waiting to be reviewed also, and I've already spent plenty of time and effort on this one. Besides, I already said in my earlier comment that I will not review it again. But since you insist, I will go and review it one more time. If I can approve it, I will. If I cannot, I will decline it, in which case please don't ask me again; someone else will have to do the next review. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Admin

Gus1182 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Now listen to me very carefuly, I don't know what kind of administrator or whatever you are, you've got to explane to me why my articles was rejected and why this articles have been approved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and your are tell me about notability??

it's ver interesting, and i'am not gonna stop, it's very very large list of articles and you better all reject

and ps

check second article, you got the message there an reject it also please

I am curious, too. I had an article inexplicably deleted as well. Jrw1234 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

One more

Gus1182 (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC) and because of people like you, websites like WIKITIA makes a millions, and we ordinary people who really want to share real information are on nerves for a months and thank you for that

Okay @Gus1182: quite honestly, I think I've heard all I want from you. I only have two more things to say:

1. Advice: try to stay civil and avoid threats and aggression; not only will you get more cooperation out of other editors, you will also avoid getting into all sorts of trouble.
2. Request: please stay away from my talk page from now on.

Thank you, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont care and i hope you will be in same kind of situation and you will see all the pain, bye Gus1182 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Cassava Sciences

So now someone else has created a page for Cassava Sciences and it was not requested to be "speedily deleted". I’m trying to figure out why that one took, but the one I created before it did not. Can you please clarify what factors you took into account when you decided to mark the entry for Cassava Sciences for speedy deletion? Jrw1234 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jrw1234,

I don't know about any speedy deletions; I wasn't involved. What I can see from the logs is that you published this on 21 Feb, and the same day an admin moved it into the draft space. On 23 Mar, it came up for me to review at AfC, and I declined it because the sources were insufficient to establish notability. After that the draft has barely been touched, it has just sat in drafts until now. And then, about ten days ago, another editor created a new article under the same name.

As I said, my involvement is limited to declining the draft, and I fully stand by that call.

As to why the new article "took" when yours didn't, this is at least partly because on superficial inspection its referencing looks much more solid. The most common reason why articles/drafts are declined or deleted is because notability is not established, and that is almost always a case of how strong or weak the referencing is. (Of course, the fact that the new version exists in the article space now doesn't mean that it will necessarily stay there for very long, if it turns out on closer inspection that the referencing isn't as strong as it first appears, or there are other problems.)

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking back, a message was left for me at the time that: "The comment the reviewer left was: 'None of the sources cited provide the sort of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT.' " A couple of the sources I had included were documents from the USFDA. Are these not significant? Did I link them incorrectly? Separately, I had linked to the company's NASDAQ exchange listing and articles detailing the company on cnn and biospace.com. Trying to figure out how this confounding process works.

@Jrw1234: of the seven citations in your draft, #1, 2 and 5 are to the company's own website; 3 is to a CNN business profile; and 6 and 7 are to some FDA correspondence. None of those contribute towards notability, which per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. The only one that comes close to meeting those criteria is #4, but even that isn't quite strong enough, and in any case not adequate on its own. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Lots of wikipedia entries are marked up with various reasons for why they need to be improved. To outright "speedily delete" or decline an entry for a company that in many ways is noteworthy seems rash. Taking that approach rather than adding suggestions and guidance on the need for improvement is pretty discouraging and seems to me contrary to the supposed "be bold" wikipedia principle. Additional edit effort would seem futile given how quickly and trivially it could be declined, which is why the draft had "barely been touched". I'm glad someone else decided to put in the time and effort to post another entry for the company despite the potential for it to be quickly removed based apparently on some individual reviewer "declining the draft". I just hope the obvious flaws in that entry are marked for improvement rather than causing the entry to be declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrw1234 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jrw1234: as I said, I have nothing to do with any speedy deletion, so you'll need to take that up with whoever was involved.

As for the decline, there is no such thing as "outright" decline; a decline just means that the draft isn't accepted at that time, and you are instead invited to improve on it and to resubmit when the issues highlighted have been put right. (The other option would have been to reject, which does mean that there is no option to resubmit, and that you could argue is possibly a bit harsh sometimes. But that's not what I did.) If you choose not to work on the draft further, there's not much I can do about that.

-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea "whoever was involved". If you also truly do not know, then I question your awareness of the impact of your actions as a reviewer. Nonetheless, you were the purported "reviewer" and your name / tag was the sole one shown. But are you asserting some distinction between an "outright decline" and a regular "decline"? I used the word "outright" simply as a descriptive term. Seems like you, as a "reviewer", should know better than myself how this works. Regardless, I sincerely suggest you take a minute and consider whether your response above actually addresses any of the points I made, to which it seems to be a response. Jrw1234 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jrw1234: okay, I'm starting to get a bit tired of your aggressive attitude. I'm happy to try to explain things for you, but I ask you to remain civil, as there's no need to get hostile.

I will try once more to explain this:

• SPEEDY: I did not request speedy deletion on your article; another editor did. (And yes, I do know who they were, and yes, you could also know, if you bothered to look: it says that in the article history as well as on your own talk page.) Not that this is strictly relevant, because the article wasn't actually deleted; the attending administrator moved it into the draft space instead (where it still sits at Draft:Cassava Sciences). My point was, as I've already explained twice, none of that involved me in any way, so why do you keep asking me about it?
• DECLINE: I did decline your draft at AfC. The outcome of an AfC review can be one of three: accept, reject, or decline. Accept means just that: the article is published. Reject means the draft isn't accepted, and cannot be resubmitted. Decline means it isn't accepted at that time, but can be resubmitted once the reasons for declining have been addressed. You asked why I had to "outright" decline, and I was just saying that to call decline "outright" is inherently missing the point. Rejection can be "outright", because it's the end of the road for that draft, but decline is always, by definition, only temporary: it just means 'improve the draft and come back when you're done'. However, you chose not to do that; for reasons only known to yourself, you did not improve the draft further, instead you abandoned it ("outright", one might say).

In any event, the article is now published, just not your version of it, so debating this any further is pretty pointless IMO. If you want more guidance on how Wikipedia works, you can get that at the Teahouse.

Bye, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft Article Rejected Due to Reference from an Authentic Source Used 3 times?

Hi DoubleGrazing,

You reviewed the draft page for Draft:Joe_Hattab and declined by adding the below comment;

Comment: Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Only the Esquire article (somewhat misleadingly cited three times slightly differently) meets these criteria, and isn't alone enough.

I do not think that a valuable piece of content should reject because an authentic reference is used for three times? Thera are many orphan pages on Wikipedia those are without reference links and live. Can you please review this again and let me know why an authentic source could get rejected even I added other reference sources as well? You can delete the reference source if you think adding multiple time is not as per Wikipedia standards. thanks

Kash 07:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Kash1981:

Firstly, just to clarify, I did not reject your draft, I declined it. Rejection means you don't get to resubmit. Decline means you are welcome to resubmit, but you need to first address the reason(s) why it was declined (in this case, inadequate sources).

Secondly, you are of course right, there are indeed many articles which are inadequately sourced (and whenever you come across one, feel free to improve its sources!); however, that does not mean that we should create more of those. New articles must comply with the WP:N notability policy, which is one of the most fundamental principles on Wikipedia.

Thirdly and most importantly, while there is nothing wrong with using the same source multiple times (although ideally you would do that using name references, see WP:NAMEDREFS), for notability purposes they still count as only once source. This means that your draft has three sources: the Esquire piece, a YouTube profile, and a YouTube 'Creator Story'. Of these, the latter two are primary, and do not count towards notability. The Esquire one does, but isn't enough, as we need multiple such sources. (Which is pretty much what I said already in my decline comment, which you're quoting above.)

In conclusion, find and cite more reliable and independent secondary sources, and resubmit your draft for review. (You may also wish to study the notability guideline at WP:GNG, so you can make sure the draft complies with this before submitting.)

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing, Thanks for the details and clarification. I do agree we should comply with the WP standards and improve the quality of content with authentic sources. I have added a couple more authentic references, followed the guidelines as you shared WP:NAMEDREFS. Hope it should approve now.

Thanks - Kash 07:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Waranganayi (09:37, 16 May 2022)

Hi there. I want to start creating a page. what's my first step? --Waranganayi (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Waranganayi, and welcome! I recommend you take a look at Your first article, it tells you all the key things you need to know to get started. Happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate name - Trying to create an article but same name exists under a different personality - How do I go around that and successfully add ?

I am trying to create a page for a individual but the same name exists already for another different person. The name is John Kamara A Tech Entrepreneur and Wiki has the name already but for the footballer from Sierra Leonne. How do I add the page without being directed to edit the Footballer page please. THESE ARE 2 TOTALLY UNRELATED People — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waranganayi (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Waranganayi you have to disambiguate the title, see WP:QUALIFIER; for example, John Kamara (entrepreneur) or John M. Kamara (obviously replacing that hypothetical M with whatever initial or middle name he has). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Waranganayi (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Review of Draft: Arshi Malik Iribisyout (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing,

I have tried to be careful and have taken care of all the review pointers: > Please remove all unnecessary bolding from body text - Done > Also remove all external links; convert to citations where relevant - Done

My Doubt is on: "private personal details such as DOB, are all referenced with inline citation to a reliable published source" I am not sure, how I can take care of DOB with any reference?

Thanks in anticipation. Iribisyout (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iribisyout: you need to cite the source that provides the information (date of birth, spouse's name, or whatever). In other words, where did you get that information from? If you got it from a reliable source, cite it. If you got it from an unreliable or unpublished one, and cannot find a reliable published source to verify it, then remove it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply DoubleGrazing. I have removed the details where I was not able to find the relevant reference.

Ready for Re-review Iribisyout (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri

Dear DoubleGrazing,

I have reworked the rejected and abandoned article by the author of "Draft:Zaid Jabri".

Since the article has been awaiting verification for more than a year, I ask you to consider the possibility of checking the page for compliance with Wikipedia standards as soon as possible.

My article "User:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri" can be deleted.

The person Zaid Jabri is internationally recognized as the leading modern Syrian composer. He is named and linked on several pages at English Wikipedia:

• Damascus Opera House
• Rosalind C. Morris
• Syrian National Symphony Orchestra
• Kinan Azmeh
• International Composing Competition “2 Agosto”
• 2017 in classical music
• The Cecilia Chorus of New York

Articles about him are published in German and Russian Wikipedia:

• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaid_Jabri
• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B8,_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%B4

It's time to present it in English Wikipedia as well. He is a bridge builder between European and Oriental traditions. This person is of great importance for the development of Arabic Syrian music. This area (culture and music) as well as the region itself are fundamentally underrepresented in the cultural context on Wikipedia and on English Wikipedia.

Thankyou

--WLDMR (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Waranganayi on User:Waranganayi/sandbox (11:34, 17 May 2022)

Hi there. So i have finished the article on my Sandbox and I am ready to publig=sh it. What do I do next to ensure it's submitted? --Waranganayi (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Waranganayi in the first instance you need to worry about the speedy deletion request which has been placed on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh my! Thanks for the alert. How long do I get to contest before a decision is made? It is not intended to promote so I am looking to rephrase it Waranganayi (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I see my Sandbox has been deleted but I was in the middle of editing it and rephrasing it and now I can see it has been deleted. --Waranganayi (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw @jimfbleak deleted my Sandbox before I had the chance to contest and share that I am working to edit and reword it as it is not meant to promote but inform. How can i recover that content back into MY Sandbox so I can work on it as I was doing --Waranganayi (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Once the speedy deletion request has been posted, the article/draft can be deleted at any time, could be in a matter of seconds, could be hours, or anything in between (that's why it's called 'speedy'). You can ask the deleting administrator to give you the content, but note that this is not an automatic entitlement, so be prepared to explain why and how you will do things differently the next time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Melissa Yesunathan Augustine (19:35, 17 May 2022)

How to do settings about my details on profile? --Melissa Yesunathan Augustine (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Melissa Yesunathan Augustine: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean; can you explain, please? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Eudora Ibiam

Hi, just a quick message to thank you for reviewing my new page so swiftly. I've found quite a few more references, so will do some more work and re-submit. So frustrating to find fascinating black women that aren't widely cited, so hard to create pages for!BrionyH (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BrionyH, wish I could have approved it, but I'm glad to hear you've already found more sources. It's good that you're working to boost Wikipedia's coverage in this area. In the same vein, you may wish to take a look at the 'Women in Red' Wikiproject, if you haven't yet. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and will take a look - currently working through a backlog of women pharmacists/dispensers who I've researched for other things, to ensure that they have a presence. 87.114.95.186 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Updates?

Just wanted to know if there was any progress with the page Leftover from the Void — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattab1234 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mattab1234, it seems to have been declined a few days ago. You received a notification of this on your User talk:Mattab1234 page. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Carolyn Quadrio

Hi, Thanks for looking at my article creation back in February and sorry it was a bit sloppy. I believe I have addressed the points and would appreciate if this article could be reviewed again. Quadrio has also made legal history, but I cannot find the reference to this, I am still looking. Still she meets the notability criteria and I have made this more clear in the lede.--Bcritical (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello DoubleGrazing,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 803 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 853 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Draft:Antigenic Essence

Hello. On May 21, 2022 you reviewed my draft page (Draft:Antigenic Essence) and left a comment. Thank you. You are absolutely right; the first 2 references refer to the group of scientists who introduced the term Antigenic Essence. This group of scientists has other scientific publications on antigenic essence and related technology such as: Cancers 2021, 13: 774, Vaccines 2019, 7 (4): 186, Recent Patents on Biotechnology 2017, 11(1): 32–41, Journal of Immunology Research 2016. Article ID 5031529, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2015, 11(3): 689-698, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2013, 9(1): 198-209, Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2013, 9(7): 1549-1552, Molecular & cellular proteomics 2012, 11(2): M111.014480, Journal of Carcinogenesis & Mutagenesis 2010, 1: 1–3, Journal of Cancer Science & Therapy 2010, 2: 126–131, Journal of Cancer 2010, 1: 230-241, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 2009, 23: 680–682 and others.

I have not listed them as they seem unnecessary and do not further reveal the term Antigenic Essence. However, these publications are cited by other scientists in well-known scientific peer-reviewed journals more than 150 times (according to Google Scholar). It means that the term and related technology is already circulating in the science. Here, you can find the extended explanation of Antigenic Essence: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/10569.

As for other references, I provided them as external sources. In reference 3 and 5, the Antigenic Essence is considered as one of the 5 most promising platforms for the development of cancer vaccines today, which could justify the publication of at least the definition of Antigenic Essence in Wikipedia.

Reference 3 is a book (reference was corrected). Reference 4 may be removed.

Thank you for your comment and I will be waiting to hear back from you and would also welcome an expert opinion from someone at WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Lichtenberg (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Need Assistance to Get My Post Approved

Greetings DroubleGrazing,

I am new at the Wiki. I need your assistance to get my post approved. I fixed the issues and resubmitted the post but it get declined again. Can you please help me with what else I need to change or update?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Northwest_Career_College

Thank you and best regards, Ryan Adame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Adame (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ryan Adame: TBH, you'll have quite a job on your hands if you want to get this into a publishable state. First and foremost, you need to find multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and provide significant coverage of it. This means newspaper articles, TV documentaries, etc., that genuinely independent journalists have put together on their own volition; not rehashed press releases or routine business reporting or 'advertorial' content provided by the college. You then merely summarise what those sources say — positive and negative — without embellishing and without adding content that you (or the college) might want to say but which isn't actually provided by the sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Greenland and the Faroes | Women in music Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (third and last month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging