User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Draft:Benjamin Warlo

Hello. You mentioned Draft:Benjamin Warlo isn’t notable enough. Should Sylvester Seeger-Hansen still be an article? Regards, StadionK (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@StadionK: I don't know, I haven't reviewed that article. I was only reviewing the Warlo draft, and it didn't demonstrate notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello i am getting my page declined by you can you Help me whats the issue here

Hello i am getting my page declined by you can you Help me whats the issue here so i can resolve that Pratikshourabh1122 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

i am new here Pratikshourabh1122 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pratikshourabh1122: the issue is that you should not be a) writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO), or b) promoting anything including yourself (see WP:YESPROMO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

ohh so i can't create my page on wikipedia in anyway Pratikshourabh1122 (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can include limited biographical information, as relates to your work on Wikipedia, on your user page, in compliance with WP:UP. This must not be promotional in nature, or include links to external resources, and must not be effectively an online CV/resume. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nor can you upload your image to Wikimedia Commons. You do not own the copyright 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You can have a lot more fun!

Following files in AFC submissions to Commons almost always shows that they are copyvios in some way. It's not only more fun, but very useful to nuke them, and also see what other files an uploader has uploaded "in error"

If you're very good(!) a Commons admin will let you have a bulk nomination tool, which makes it a lot easier, but I think deletion options exist in the left hand margin, and tineye and google lens searches are tabs at the head of the page. Happy to endorse an application for the bulk deletion tool. What you need is rights like I have there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I'm a bit shy on Commons, it's outside my comfort zone. I mostly go there to see an editor's contributions, as part of trying to figure out if they're a sock or UPE. But yes, I remember you mentioning before that there are better deletion tools available to those who are deemed worthy. I guess I ought to put in an application (unworthy as I no doubt am). Thanks for the nudge, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I started out shy, too. The best approach is to build up a track record nuking the easy ones. after a month or two it becomes second nature. And the admins there are excellent tutors and guides 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

your very old

You joined in 2006 Infomanfri (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sakhile Dube

Hello, @DoubleGrazing,

This one caught my eye because it has AfC templates in it but it's in the main. Looking at the history, you declined it on 30 June 2024, but the OP moved it into the main on 22 September 2024. Should I move it back via restoring this edit? Would that move it back?

Please let me know at your convenience.

Cheers! OIM20 (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OIM20: while this article is still pretty poorly referenced, it is now better than when I reviewed back in June. The Miss Universe Zimbabwe win would seem to make her (presumably) notable per WP:NBEAUTY, so FWIW my sense is that this is probably best left where it is, somewhat borderline as it may be.

As for de-publication, I've never found any other method to work very well, other than simply moving the page into the Draft: name space. Restoring an earlier state, or undoing the publication move, somehow doesn't seem to quite do it. But maybe it's just me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2024

Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320 Online events: New: Women in STEM | Geofocus: Islands I-P | Women in archaeology Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities October is Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" Good Article Edit-a-thon Tip of the month: Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Can I get your help for my article?

Hi, please accept my apology for taking your time but I needed to write to you about the article "Antarctic Film Festival" which is my draft and I saw your reasons to decline it. I am just a new writer and tried to collect all independent resources about the festival and gave their references as I was writing it. But I am surely making a mistake somewhere but I can't really understand it. If you help me how I can correct my article, I will be very pleased. I may not see the point because of being new here. Thank you for your kind help in advance. Your help will improve my learning too.

Ps: The news on media about the festival is really limited. We may think that it is not eligible to be an article here. But this is a real film festival and a call to 4500 possible attendees (who work in research stations in Antractica and from many countries). The festival is held aslo since 2006 and is now more mature.

Draft:Antarctic Film Festival DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

About draft:Matka (film)

Hello,

Recently, you declined the article Draft:Matka (film), which I created using Viswam (film) as a reference. However, the film Viswam has not been released either. Is this film notable? Could you please check this? MySlack1222 (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@MySlack1222: I haven't reviewed the Viswam article, because it doesn't matter in what comes to the notability or otherwise of the Matka draft. That draft has to demonstrate notability in its own right and generally stand on its own two feet, not leaning on other articles that may be out there; this, it didn't do.

If you feel that the Viswam article fails on notability or other grounds, you're very welcome to improve it, or tag it with appropriate maintenance templates, or indeed to start deletion proceedings if you feel that's warranted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to DoubleGrazing for accumulating at least 25 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Worm Gear Award
		This award is given in recognition to DoubleGrazing for accumulating at least 7 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Lex Rex Institute

Sorry we seem to have clashed here! Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the outcome would've been the same either way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Admin elections

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates - let us know what you think. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: well, there you have it – done! I was already decided against running, but had a last-minute change of heart. I don't actually expect to make it, but at least I won't then have to wonder what-if, or to run the RfA gauntlet. And maybe it'll be useful (!) having all my mistakes pointed out to me. :) Hey-ho. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

David Born Wiki Page Denial

I am trying to submit a page but keep making errors, it is for David Born. An American Actor who has appeared in 90 movies and TV shows. Huge Hits. Currently in Twisters. Has articles and media pieces about him. He is also the Best Robin Williams Impersonator in the world and has starred in tons of TV shows, Reality Shows and Documentaries as Robin. Yet, I keep getting told he has not done enough? I am doing something wrong. There has to be an easier way to get his page up. He is an American Star. I added his name and links to several sites... To no Avail. Is it the format? Help. Many Thanks!! Tuhdaze (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Tuhdaze I have edited your draft and you can now find it here Draft:David Born creating an article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, your draft had no useable sources and was poorly formatted, it will still need a LOT of work if it is ever to be accepted. He will need to pass the criteria at WP:NACTOR.Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ajthompson22 (08:04, 14 October 2024)

What rank am i on wikipedia? --Ajthompson22 (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ajthompson22: what do you mean by 'rank'? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Majid Dawood Article

HI @DoubleGrazing, as requested, I have made some amendments to the article and was wondering if you could take a look please. I am happy to make more amendments to make the article pass the publication criteria on to Wikipedia. Thank you for your help. Omar Azami (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi@Omar Azami: I don't think anyone requested any amendments; quite the opposite: when I rejected this draft, that means the end of the road, beyond which there is no point amending it. In any case, I've just taken a quick look, and none of the sources cited contributes anything towards notability, and the draft remains insufficiently referenced, therefore my rejection and accompanying comments still stand. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your reply. I may have misunderstood your message. I will start afresh. Will it be possible to have some advice going forward so I don't make the same mistakes again. Thank you Omar Azami (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

AfC promo ouroboros

Do you remember the incident some months back when there was a group of publicists who were specifically creating new "reliable coverage" of the authors they were promoting in order to show that the drafts they were creating at AfC were notable? I think they were all Macedonian poets? -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: yes, I do remember vaguely, just don't ask me their names! Why? Are they back? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Candidate instructions

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
• October 22–24: Discussion phase
• October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–?: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Exciting! I had no idea you were running for Adminship and just checked out the discussion. Best of luck! Qcne (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Planet Pets

Hii @DoubleGrazing, Hoping you are fine, Recently you rejected my article maked as advertising material. I know you are busy, i need to know whats wrong in this article. Really need your help. Thanks Sehajveer1999 (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sehajveer1999: what's wrong with it is that it only tells what the company does, its products, its history, etc.; basically, it's an online brochure or company presentation. We have no interest in that. We want to know what reliable and entirely independent secondary source have decided, of their own volition and without any inducement by the subject, to say about the subject and what makes it worthy of note. Your main job is simply to summarise what such sources have published. Now, the draft cites no such source; in fact, the majority of the sources are the same press release regurgitated in multiple publications. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

i got it thanks buddy Sehajveer1999 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Our Admin Election Test

Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @LindsayH, thanks for stopping by. :) It'll be interesting, I'm sure; quite curious to see how it goes. That said, I kind of regret tossing my hat in the ring, now that it turns out there are so many candidates that it's causing all sorts of problems. Although I guess this is also helping to flush out some unanticipated issues, which may be a good thing in the bigger scheme of things. Anyway, best of luck with it, hope it all turns out well! Kind regards, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bikepacking Fastest Known Times

Hi. I'm wanting to finish and update my article on bikepacking FKT's. I'm a novice and inviting my friend Schwede66 to this discussion. It's been redirected but don't understand why as it is about historical records for races. Be grateful for your advice. Htcltd (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Htcltd: I had to remind myself what this is about, as it goes back almost two years.  Courtesy link: Draft:Bikepacking fastest known time

From the edit history, it seems you created this draft in your sandbox and submitted it for review. I moved it from the sandbox to the above title, which is the preferred location for pending drafts. I didn't review the draft, but added a comment saying "'Bikepacking' currently forwards to Mixed terrain cycle touring, where bikepacking is covered in one short paragraph in the 'Types' section. It seems odd to be developing an article on some specific aspect of bikepacking (FKTs), without actually having an article on the concept itself." A few days later you edited the draft, and then redirected it to Bikepacking, which you were also editing around the same time. You and a bot then changed the redirect a few times. All along the draft had the AfC submission tag on it, ie. it was pending review, so three months or so later, in March 2023, I blanked it to remove it from the pending pool, as I explained at the time on your talk page User_talk:Htcltd#Blanked_draft.

So that's where we are. What is it you'd like to do (or like me to do) now? The blanking can be reverted, no problem. The pending review template can restored (ie. left there, once the blanking is reverted) if you'd like this to be reviewed now; or it can be removed, if you don't feel this is ready for review, and added back later when you feel it is. Let me know, or feel free to action yourself, of course. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Just leaving a note here that I haven’t read the draft. We had limited time to look at the edit history to figure out what had been going on. And spent some time discussing how Wikipedia works etc. Schwede66 17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. My mate is rather busy IRL. It might take him a while to respond.
2. I'm working my way through the RfAs and sense that you'll soon be joining the admin ranks. Excellent work!

Schwede66 23:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Shania Bedward

Hi @DoubleGrazing when adding citations of commentators from live video footage, I assume you mean to "quote" when adding the info from the commentators at the competition when it broadcasted. The competition was live showing from the FBC Sports network and Canada. Replays of the footage are available. Can a video or link to a video network be used as the citing refference?

Thanks 067012724b (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @067012724b: if I've understood correctly, your question boils down to "is video an acceptable source?" The short answer is yes. The slightly more nuanced answer is... it depends.

Firstly, depends on what sort of video, and by whom: if it's a home video I've shot, then no; if it's news footage by a reputable broadcaster like BBC or CNN, then yes.

Also, depends on where it is available: if on the broadcaster's own streaming service or similar, then that's certainly fine; if on their own official YouTube or Vimeo etc. channel, then also fine; if on a third party's channel, then that is problematic, as we can't be sure that the content hasn't been 'doctored'.

Note also that the footage must meet the definition of being published, ie. a permanent record of it must exist, either as footage or transcript; if it was a live broadcast of which no such record was kept (unlikely, but possible) then it is no longer available after the broadcast, and cannot therefore be accessed for verification.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I wish you luck, of course

Vote early and often! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And, if you tell me where your relevant subpage is and where to vote, I will support you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, @Timtrent. The election pages are thisaway: Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024. Voting starts tomorrow (I think?). There are some good candidates, and I'm there also for my sins. Vote for one any number of the good ones. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you as a strong candidate. I hope you will find the mop and bucket beneficial. I know you will mop the floor diligently, and tidy the tools away ready for the next use.

My stance for myself is unchanged. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Request on 05:23:43, 25 October 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Abersnail

• Abersnail (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nicola Dell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! My understanding of WP:NACADEMIC was that a MacArthur Fellowship always qualifies. According to that page, under specific criteria 2a.

Abersnail (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Abersnail: you're absolutely right! That was sloppy of me. I will go and make amends post-haste! Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Review on Draft: Museum of the University of Tübingen

Hi! Thank you for reviewing and commenting on my draft. I'm aware that my undertaking is not encouraged, and thus I can only try to be very careful in my attempt and listen closely to the feedback of experienced users like yourself. This said, I'd like to ask you a follow-up question about one of your comments, if you don't mind: the one about the unclear use of the list of publications.

These are the exhibition catalogues and other publications written/edited and published by the museum, i.e. the output of the organisation and its scientific staff and therefore primary sources. However, as they deal with the exhibitions and objects in the collection, I thought the list was relevant in terms of content - comparable to, I thought, lists of publications authors on their pages. (To explain my train of thought: The structure of the article, including the list of publications, is closely linked to the German Wikipedia entry of the museum, because it is already approved by review - I understand, of course, that this does not mean that it will be approved here too.)

Having this explanation, would that change your assessment regarding this point (and if so, do you have any suggestions as to how I might make this clearer in the article itself)? Thanks again for your feedback! TrinChase (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TrinChase: thanks for explaining the rationale behind the list of publications. In that case, you're of course welcome to keep them there, but based on what you say, they won't contribute anything to notability as I was cautiously hoping they might.

You're right, the fact that there exists an article on this subject in the German-language Wikipedia is no guarantee that one will be accepted here, as each language version is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements. To be accepted here, you will need to show that the subject is notable, which in most cases means that independent and reliable secondary sources have published significant coverage about it and how they see it as being influential, interesting or otherwise noteworthy.

If you cannot find such sources to justify a standalone article on the museum, then all is not lost; you can probably incorporate a lot of this material into the main University of Tübingen article. That removes from the equation the need to demonstrate notability; you only need to be able to support the information with reliable sources, which is a much lower hurdle to overcome.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time for me, @DoubleGrazing! I do fully understand what you mean about the publications not contributing to notability, them being non-independent. Regarding that, I'll do my homework and collect press reports and independent publications, and if it doesn't amount to notability as per the rules, I'll expand and bring the museum section of the main article up to date with verifiable information - thank you so much for that suggestion. TrinChase (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)