User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

I filled out the references so they all have complete citations

The page for Tina Dimitrova has 8 references which all follow the proper format and are from reliable sources such as Bloomberg 2600:1008:B135:9246:391A:3701:7502:330C (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Request on 09:41:05, 4 February 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Rojja1996

• Rojja1996 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vivek Basnet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rojja1996 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ntswaki Rosy Mosibi on Traditional society (16:37, 5 February 2024)

Hi What is traditional societies --Ntswaki Rosy Mosibi (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Request on 12:02:20, 7 February 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by 一般通过喜欢熊科动物的网友

• 一般通过喜欢熊科动物的网友 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thank you very much for your review for my Draft:Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University. But I have a lot of questions, I hope you can help me explain, and reconsider my draft! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Guangdong_Polytechnic_Normal_University There is no doubt about this school's 60+ years of existence. For public schools in China, they are not allowed to give false content on their official websites, otherwise they will be sanctioned by the education department，and if you don't trust the sources I've added, Can check： https://yz.chsi.com.cn/sch/schoolInfo--schId-678246,categoryId-678248.dhtml . This is the official website of the Chinese Ministry of Education for graduate student enrollment. The enrollment brochure of the school on it is confirmed and certified by the education department and is a credible source.

As for why I did not emphasize the school's long history and excellent performance, it is because doing so would seem to promote the school. Besides, my English level is limited, so I did not include too much content about the school's strength, but I can re-add it if necessary!

Again, I hope you can reconsider my submission, thank you!

一般通过喜欢熊科动物的网友 (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@一般通过喜欢熊科动物的网友: we are happy to consider your draft again (I only declined it, I didn't reject it outright), but you must provide sources which demonstrate that the subject is notable. Almost all the citations are to the university's own website or other primary sources, which do not establish notability. Per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage of the university in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. And not only do you need to provide such sources, the draft should be based on a summary of what such sources say, not on what the university says about itself. Once you have made the necessary changes, you may resubmit the draft for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I gonna quote more official documents from the government and reports from registered Chinese media. 一般通过喜欢熊科动物的网友 (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@一般通过喜欢熊科动物的网友: no, not from the government; government publications are almost always primary sources, whereas we need to see secondary ones. Media outlets are much better, as long as they are reliable and independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Smartcake (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

rahhat shah kazmi

KINDLY GUIDE HOW TO FIX rahhat shah kazmi, THIS GOR DECLINED DUE TO WRONG REFFERENCING Hafzal Murbani (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome, sort of

Today WP:ANI has more than the usual number of attacks by new or unregistered editors against established editors, and in some cases the new editors have been blocked. Welcome to a strange club for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to DoubleGrazing for collecting at least 25 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Rajkumar (2024 film) has a new comment

I've left a comment on my Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft talk:Rajkumar (2024 film). Thanks! নবাব (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your comments and I can see that the page needs more sources but that's literary all the sources I can find for that tower. It's a building being built in a city almost no one cares about. Is there any other way I can get my draft approved, because I really tried my best and I even used other similar articles for reference to how to structure the page. Gamezilla2019 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

for what reason was my article blocked? lack of sources? very strange, because 2 articles in Russian and Ukrainian were published. Why can’t I create a page about a man who defended the ideals of the free world at the cost of his life? rus: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#:~:text=%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%20(24%20%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8F,%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%8B%2081%20%D0%9E%D0%90%D0%9C%D0%91%D1%80%20%D0%92%D0%A1%D0%A3. ukr: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Kopanishyn (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kopanishyn: for the reasons I said in my comments, there is no evidence that the subject meets our notability criteria, and most of the information is unreferenced.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a website for hosting memorials, you will have to find a different venue for that.

Whether articles have been published on ru.wiki and uk.wiki is neither here nor there, as every language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding notability of the draft

Hey!

Thank you for commenting on the Draft:Shriya Lohia. You said "It is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia".

Can you please guide me how can I improve this draft?

Does the problem is in the references or in the article write-up?

Please, guide me on this. Thank you!

Regards,

Nabeeha Nabeeha Virk (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

DaSouChe Group

Dear DoubleGrazing, I am writing to request a re-consideration of my creation of an article about DaSouChe Group. All the citations are from major Chinese news outlet such as Sohu and 36Kr, and some of them are online reports of major Chinese news papers, such as 经济观察报. I think they should qualify as reliable sources. Could you reconsider my submission? Thanks. Paloaltoqin (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paloaltoqin: at the time when I reviewed it, the draft was completely unreferenced; you added those sources after my review. Besides, it has subsequently been reviewed by another reviewer, who also declined it, and the draft has not been edited since. As things stand, there is nothing to reconsider. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Harsh Jain

Hi @DoubleGrazing , this is regarding Draft:Harsh Jain - You have placed 'Review in progress' template on this draft and it's been more than 24hours since you have added this notice. Thought of checking with you first before putting this on Live Help as mentioned on the template. Kindly let me know the status/next steps. Thanks! Himalayan7914 (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Himalayan7914: are you in a hurry? If so, why? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline.

What is your relationship with the subject of this draft, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am neither in a hurry nor do I have any relationship with the subject. The template says - "If this template has been unchanged for more than twelve hours, please ask for live help from our experienced editors", and I am relatively new to Wikipedia hence I asked. You can take your time. Apologies. And thanks! Himalayan7914 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing

About Draft:Exemplar_Global

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Exemplar Global. You asked for multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Please see citation #1, #3 and #14, which are government's websites. Citation #7, #9, #11 and #16 are independent industry authority organizations' websites. I believe they are reliable secondary sources. Thank you! EmmaNovember (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

why you always reject my article

we saw since last 2 year you always reject our articles. is there any problem with us. i think you all just want to make monopoly to edit wikipedia. if you not accept our article then why you give the option to create article, we suggest remove it. website creation is much easier than to create article on wikipedia. wroast article platform. Controldeepak (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor (I'm not @DoubleGrazing), I must tell you that Wikipedia is NOT a website for promotion. As you stated yourself, making a website to advertise is far EASIER than trying to put it in WIkipedia. If you wanted anyone to accept your drafts, you would first need to understand Wikiepdia's policy on paid editing, notability, and reliability. Even then, I can't confirm that your draft would be accepted anyways ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Iveco Group

I see that you first declined this draft as Merge to Iveco, and then reverted your decline for another reviewer to look at it. It appears to me that merging is probably in order. So can you explain what your questions were, or why you reverted your decline? I am not saying that you made a mistake, but I want to know what your thoughts were. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I thought merge would be in order, but the author felt otherwise, and I couldn't come up with a clear-cut policy etc. reason either way, so thought I'd just pass the buck. I think it's a case of 'Nokia' the brand vs. 'Nokia' the corporation – how do you distinguish between them, and where do you draw the lines between what should or shouldn't be a separate article? I really don't know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that usually one article about a company and its divisions and products is enough, and I think that corporate notability should be applied strictly when it comes to arguing that divisions or products are sufficiently notable for their own articles. I think that when an editor is persistent about wanting additional articles, they are probably a paid editor. So I declined the draft and have asked them to answer a question about conflict of interest. So I agreed with your initial call, and I was willing to answer your request for another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello dear

@DoubleGrazing respected, we have made the necessary changes, we have set with our colleagues a source for each sentence, we plan to set up some more new sources independents. Are you satisfied and what else do you need to approve the draft? Мкдвики (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Мкдвики: I don't know which draft you're referring to, but if it's one I've declined, and you've made the necessary changes, then click on the blue 'submit' button and a reviewer will take a look at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazingDraft:Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski - Wikipedia

Please look at it once again so that it is not rejected once again. Мкдвики (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Sierra Valley Gardens

You can now check all the sources I've provided. Thank you. Adhesivecobra17 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Riffled

I had a suspicion he wasn't significant enough to qualify for a page anyhow, but coverage of drag racing here is so poor, I figured it couldn't hurt... Nitrobreather (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, might be worth to benchmark criterias

Hi DoubleGrazing

Thanks for the rigorous review and grammar edit suggestions on the Eero Vaara page. Worth mentioning that I have noticed academics with much less significant contributions having a page, but nevertheless I now know now much better the criterias etc. Dr. Rainbow Snuggles (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Moi @Dr. Rainbow Snuggles,

Yes, there are all sorts of 'issues' among the 6.5m+ articles in the English-language Wikipedia, unfortunately. In the site's earliest era, people pretty much just wrote whatever came to their head, without bothering with such minor details as referencing. In the 'middle era', questions started to be asked around 'where is all this stuff coming from?' and 'how do we know any of it is true?' Now, in the modern era we've gone a step further, and require the information not only to be verifiable, but also need convincing that the subject is worthy of inclusion in the 'pedia, ie. that it is notable. But many of the articles from the earlier eras (and/or created by editors who learned their trade during those eras) haven't been brought up to the required standards, and hence there is a huge range in article quality. This is why we nowadays require new articles to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines, rather than merely matching the standard of some existing article out there; a sentiment expressed well in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

All of which is a rather lengthy answer to a question you didn't even ask, really. :)

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Moikka. Thanks, this is hugely interesting! Shouldn´t there be some sort labeling of these for the reader in the beginning of the piece or on a top corner of the page? Kind of a 1-5 standard where the current modern era qualifies the best standard. Its kind of fundamentally different knowledge bases we are talking about. --@Dr. Rainbow Snuggles Dr. Rainbow Snuggles (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dr. Rainbow Snuggles: there is the Content assessment system, which rates new articles when they are published (or when reviewed by new page patrol, if not done at the time of publishing). The WikiProjects whose area of interest an article comes under then reassess the articles occasionally. The current rating is shown on the article talk page, and also appears on top of the article page if you've opted (in your personal Preferences) to see the page meta info.

Additionally, readers can flag up issues such as insufficient referencing, questionable sources, etc. with maintenance tags, either inline or on top of the page (or section). Tags then cause those articles to be listed as requiring attention, and hopefully someone will get around to doing something about it at some point. But as we're all volunteers, and the number of articles needing attention is vast, 'hopefully' is very much the operative word there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing again thanks! Yes the Content Assessment totally answers the question, and this all is a rich resource for future works, Now noticing this for example with Science diplomacy editing requests.

It is wild how critical the content in Wikipedia has become, for search engines and OpenAI etc etc Dr. Rainbow Snuggles (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Re this, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mxcronin. S0091 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Myrmecophilioma (16:15, 20 February 2024)

hi, DoubleGrazing. I was wondering how to add an image to a page? -Myrmecophilioma --Myrmecophilioma (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Myrmecophilioma,

I assume you mean an image that has already been uploaded into Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons? In that case it's done like any wikilink, with double square brackets, pointing to the image file name (instead of to another page), for example:

[[File:Peppers-pan-S-1024x976.jpg|thumb]]

...which gives you:

A bowl of peppers

You'll notice that I placed a few optional parameters after 'pipes' ( | ), namely

• thumb = makes it a thumbnail
• left = floats the image to the left margin
• text = captions the image

You can read more at WP:Images.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

hi DoubleGrazing

no, I want to add an image not in the wikipedia commons.

i did add the image I wanted to use but do I have to wait to use it?

I am extremely new here and all the formatting is a bit confusing.

yours, Myrmecophilioma Myrmecophilioma (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Myrmecophilioma: it looks like you may have used the WP:Files for upload process which is for unregistered users, and where uploads require approval by editors patrolling that feature. Since you do have a user account registered, you should be able to use the file upload wizard at WP:FUW instead, which is instantaneous. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

thank you DoubleGrazing

I have figured it out and I appreciate you taking the time to assist me.

yours, Myrmecophilioma Myrmecophilioma (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Georg Eckert Institute

Hey @DoubleGrazing!
Thanks for your work and I understand why you declined my submission (for the new article).
Would you accept the profound Wikidata item Q1503374 as the (mentioned) ‘secondary sources to establish notability’? I also have to add the German article and all the current existing backlinks (to the main article).
Kind regards!
Sommer-gei (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sommer-gei: sorry, no – pretty much everything in the Wikipedia ecosystem is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. We need to see significant coverage in multiple (3+) secondary sources (books, TV or radio programmes, newspapers, magazines, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Thank you! (I don't understand, why wikidata references to very trusted and reliable secondary sources aren't enough for that proof, but I know you can't change that.) I'll try my best to produce some text with the required references. BR -- Sommer-gei (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sommer-gei: Wikidata's tag line is "The free knowledge base with 108,586,589 data items that anyone can edit." It's the "anyone can edit" part which makes it non-reliable, just like Wikipedia itself. If the Wikidata item cites reliable sources, then you can of course use those, but you cannot use the Wikidata item itself.

At any rate, even if the information is reliable, it only proves that such a subject (in this case your institute) exists; that, in and of itself, doesn't yet mean that it is notable. For notability, we need to see those secondary sources mentioned earlier. And notability is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

restore Article

Please restore the article as draft, I'll rewrite it with neutrality and resubmit it again. Noya Boi Bazar (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Noya Boi Bazar: I couldn't restore it if I wanted to, as I'm not an admin.

Wikipedia cannot be used for promotional activity of any sort, and attempts to do so may result in your account being blocked.

Regardless, your very next edit should be to disclose your conflict of interest in this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

i'll keep in mind. please restore my article as draft. Noya Boi Bazar (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Noya Boi Bazar: I told you already, I cannot restore it. Besides, it was a draft, and was deleted as promotional; why would it be restored? Anyway, you can ask the deleting administrator if they'll give it back to you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

where can i find him ? Noya Boi Bazar (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Goformeco (03:52, 24 February 2024)

Hi there,

I'm asking for your input about the draft I submitted that is titled, "Brad Cooney." The subject of the entry has a highly successful podcast, they were involved in the world of professional boxing via journalism, and they have been a part of successful documentaries/films. A Google search will confirm that they have a definite footprint in pop culture. After my first attempted article was rejected, I went back and found sources from a news station and other, more strong, independent sources. I completely recreated the entry, but I was rejected again. If the sources I used in the revision aren't strong enough for a concise wikipedia entry, then other entries that I planned on submitting won't be strong enough, either. It seems to me like the subject of the entry would qualify for a wiki article, but I doubt that I can discover any stronger sourcing than what I already have. Thanks very kindly. --Goformeco (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brad Cooney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goformeco (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure your reply to a query up above mine relates to my question: "@Sommer-gei: sorry, no – pretty much everything in the Wikipedia ecosystem is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. We need to see significant coverage in multiple (3+) secondary sources (books, TV or radio programmes, newspapers, magazines, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"

I used one source from a news station, one from what is an online periodical. What I'm really asking is what constitutes, "notability"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goformeco (talk • contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)