User talk:Mach61/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Mach61, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello, I'm Laterthanyouthink. I noticed that you recently removed content from Aboriginal Tent Embassy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Meowdy!

Thank you for your edit to my userpage. It looks like I screwed up a link. That was very thoughtful of you! ^-^ !!!! Atomic putty? Rien! 20:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You’re welcome! Mach61 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

open this article. I will edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_World_Armwrestling_Championship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_World_Armwrestling_Championship 37.151.223.43 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Mörel railway station

When you propose an article for deletion, you’re encouraged, but not required, to notify the article’s author and any major contributors. You can write your own note or use Template:Proposed deletion notify. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sincere apologies! Mach61 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem. There's a lot to learn around here.

I suspect that article will be kept - we have a fetish for little railroad stations but we'll see.

I appreciate your caring about our articles!

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see why I forgot. My last few PRODs and last two AFDs have mostly been for dead, inactive, or blocked users. Mach61 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Mörel is a small station, but there are those of us who love small stations :). Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy or consensus based process that says you that must inform lead author and indeed anybody else. It is a courtesy and the majority of folk do not do it. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep I'm very curious how you found this monts-old talk page discussion. Mach61 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at the Kate Kallot article and somehow led here. The reason I responded is because A.B. left the project for donkeys and came back last year but occasionally he offers bad advice because he's basing it on practice, in what was the norm 10 years or whatever the period he was away, was. Apart from that he is excellent editor and some day soon he will be an excellent admin. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's a back-handed compliment or just back-handed. In any event no donkeys were harmed while I was away. I will say that WP:PRODNOM still says:

• "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion. This should be done by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag, or other appropriate text."

Scope creep is right though, in general -- I spent 10 years with the donkeys and some things have changed in the meantime. I continue learning. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is measurement of time for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:User IP address

Hello, Mach61,

Please do not ever tag a template for speedy deletion. When you do this, every single page that has the template transcluded on it are also tagged for speedy deletion. If you believe a template should be deleted, take it to WP:TFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you meant "never tag a template for CSD without first going to TfD", but yeah, I'll take the L here. Mach61 (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Categorify

Template:Categorify has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of @hotel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on @hotel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Bobby Floyd (musician)

On 23 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bobby Floyd (musician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite being a keyboard player himself, Ray Charles hired Bobby Floyd to play organ and piano in his band? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bobby Floyd (Jazz musician). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bobby Floyd (musician)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Too long a plot summary?

An article to which you added a "Too long a plot summary" banner (11/18/2023), Early Jazz: Its Roots and Musical Development, was rated C-class by both WikiProject Jazz (which lists you as a member) and WikiProject Books. You can see that on the article's Talk page.

I assume that those projects, which are well qualified to judge the length of the article's "plot summary" <sic> of the non-fiction book, did not consider the summary excessively detailed. Rather they appear to have considered it appropriate enough to give it positive ratings.

Your edit, incorporating a denegrating banner, seems erroneous to me. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The principles of not overelaborating on the books content apply equally to fiction and non fiction books, and there isn’t a more precise tag for the complaint I had. I do not think there is a good reason for each chapter to have an individual subheading, or for said subheadings to contain as much information as they do; here is an example of a featured article of a non-fiction book with a much shorter section. Mach61 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Closure of WMF RFC

First, thank you for stepping up to close this RFC, although I would recommend gaining experience with closing smaller and less consequential discussions before stepping up to major ones like this one - my understanding is that this is the first RFC you have ever closed?

To move on the substance of this, I would like to request you revert your close. First, you erred in closing the discussion after participating in a manner beyond merely clerking; this made you involved, and meant you should have left the closure for another - particularly since this was a set of three closely related RfC’s, and you !voted in another.

Second, while your closure of question two justified why you didn’t down weight the !votes in opposition, it presented no justification for why you down weighted the !votes in support - without such a reason an almost two-thirds majority should result in a consensus in favour. BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

My rationale for deweighting question two votes was that support !votes disproportionately lacked rationales, and …many support rationales overlapped with those of resolutions #3 and #1. The INVOLVED question is more fair, but I believe my participation in this topic area has been tangential to the questions at hand in this proposal. My oppose !vote with regards to the VPW banner didn’t touch on beliefs about WMF-community relations; I’d liken it to an admin closing this RFC after participating in the fundraising banner workshop, but no more recent disputes. And as a general rule, people are more tolerant of closers who have minor involvement if the relevant discussion has been stale for a few weeks.

If you simply want proposal #2 to be approved, I think you have better odds at proposing a modified version at a later date than getting my close overturned. I won't take it personally if you take this to AN; the process from this proposal will take a while to complete, so some review is warranted. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that given how close one of the three RfCs is, I would prefer to see a more established closer take care of this one, too. :/ It's the sort of RfC that really needs someone who has a lot practice in closing RfCs and who has an established track record of uncontroversial closures. Otherwise there'll be conspiracy theories for years ... ("it was someone from the WMF/a friend of someone at the WMF/a staffer's sock/someone hoping to get money from the KEF in the next round of grantees etc."). Would you mind reverting? Regards, Andreas JN466 00:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding involved, look at the text of the policy; it’s construed broadly. Given you participated in the RFC in question, and you have even acknowledged involvement, I hope you will be willing to self revert - it may take a little more time to find another closer, but there is no urgency and it better to have a clearly appropriate close than one tainted by questions of involvement. BilledMammal (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it’s been more than a day since the close, and if this is all the pushback I’m getting I’ll take it as a good omen Mach61 (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Opened close appeal, since you don't seem interested in discussing further. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ll make one quick comment clarifying my close on AN soon, but I won’t participate in a back-and-forth argument there. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 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? 14:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree

The Netflix and LGBT representation in animation page is certainly overly detailed. I have considered splitting some or all of it off, and merging some parts to other pages, but honestly, I haven't got around to it. What's your suggestion(s) for making the page LESS detailed? Historyday01 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Netflix outputs far too much content to document every time one of their shows had two girls holding hands or whatever. It would be better if the article was sectioned by topic, rather than by decade, and focused primarily on how Netflix has treated queer content from a top-down executive level. Individual works should only be mentioned they have an exceptional amount of sourcing for LGBT themes; routine coverage should be excluded. Mach61 (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with that, they do output a LOT of content. If it was focused by topic, that could also be better for users too... I'll see what I can do to improve it, for sure based on your suggestions. Historyday01 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition of references to Talk:Netflix and LGBT representation in animation

I really appreciate it! I also did some recent overhauls of LGBT representation in children's television and Disney and LGBT representation in animation pages. I plan to do the Cartoon Network and LGBT representation page next. Such changes will prevent those pages from becoming dumping grounds for representation, which happens far too often. Historyday01 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Honestly, I can't say this is a topic area I'll be of much assistance in. Wish you luck! Mach61 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Mach61,

I've been seeing articles you tagged as PRODS and there are a couple of issues. First, you are not leaving an informative edit summary. This is very important with PRODs because if they are de-PROD'd, editors look at the page history to see if the article has already been PROD'd and they do that by looking at the edit summaries. Also, you are not posting a notification of the deletion tagging on the article creator's talk page. This is an important step of the deletion process, especially PRODs because often the page creator can address the problems brought up in PROD tag and end up untagging the article. But notification is also important with CSD speedy deletions and AFDs and other deletion discussions.

I recommend you give Twinkle a try. It's a very easy-to-use editing tool used by most page patrollers and many administrators. It basically remembers all of the necessary templates so you don't have to memorize them or go search for the one you need. It helps tag page for deletion, tag articles for any problems they have, set up AFD/RFD/CFD/etc. deletion discussions, report vandals to noticeboard, post welcome messages to new editors, it even maintains a deletion log for you. Just be sure you set up your Twinkle Preferences so that the box stating "Notify page creator" is checked off. Twinkle will take care of both your edit summary and notifications for you. I encourage you to give it a short because it really helps with the editing process.

If you have questions about Twinkle or deletion notifications, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

On the edit summaries: fair enough, I'll use those and place {{oldprod}} manually. On Twinkle: since the last time I was warned for this, I've judiciously checked the page history to see if the original creator is active, and I don't do this automatically because I have a strong aesthetic preference against talk pages of inactive users being filled with notifications. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mach61 -- Jumping in to say that placing prod notices on (apparently) inactive editors' talk pages does actually serve several functions: the editor may have a functional e-mail enabled and thus receive the message and be stirred into returning; the talk page may well still be watched by other editors with similar interests, who might be able to step in and improve the article; and (particularly where several editors have placed deletion notices) it gives information to admins and other patrollers about the quality of the editor's creations. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Peaches

Dear Mach61, I seem to be bumping into you a bit, I saw your NPR got declined, and to make you feel a bit better, Darcyisverycute (talk) has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!

Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm not too sad about the decline, since realistically I was going to be a low-volume reviewer even if I got the permission. But I'm grateful you have me in your thoughts. Mach61 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft on german rubber institute

Hi Mach61. Regarding notability: DIK has produced many of the top scientists in the german rubber industry. I have added several sources to support this fact, and checked in particular that they are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. cites 3,4,5 and 13 certainly meet this standard. AresLiam (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@AresLiam The fact that DIK has produced many of the top scientists in the german rubber industry does not confer notability on DIK, since notability is not inherited. I cannot access the book source 13, but none of the other sources meet the very high bar WP:NORG sets (interviews are not independent). I believe that DIK probably meets NORG, but there is no evidence of that in the article's current sources. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the statement was not to suggest inherited notability, it was rather about economic impact. Does producing >100 PhD rubber scientists that drive innovation in the German economy not confer notability to their source? (cite 3) The instructions said to talk about impact on society to establish notability. re:"there is no evidence..." - you were so quick to respond that I have trouble believing you really looked for the evidence that you did not find... AresLiam (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Does producing >100 PhD rubber scientists that drive innovation in the German economy not confer notability to their source? No it does not. Per WP:INHERITORG, any organization or corporation... must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable, all other honors be damned. Mach61 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mach61 After reviewing the WP:ORG article, I notice that its scope of application in paragraph 1 explicitly excludes non-profit educational institutions (DIK is a nonprofit educational institution). It seems you may be overreaching in your application of the standard in this case. In any event, I have now added cites 5 and 7 with good faith aim to further strengthen the sources, though I believe that the existing sources already meet the requirements. Cite 5 shows that DIK was cited in independent media for its leadership on tire wear particles, as recognized by 11 different tire company CEOs. Cite 7 is a scholarly journal article discussing the economic context that lead to creation of DIK. AresLiam (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@AresLiam You're right, I misremembered WP:NGO as being stricter than it actually was. Sorry. Mach61 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

no worries. I think we are both aiming at making wp better, so I appreciate your challenge to learn more about and to better apply the notability policies. In the end, the article got much stronger and I learned a bit more about DIK. all good ends. peace and blessings on you, and happy new year! AresLiam (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Robertcameronmcmillan (02:11, 29 December 2023)

HI there. I'm working with Leni Parker to get a photo that she does not think is terrible added to her wikipedia page, but the system is not accepting the photo I have uploaded. Any advice? --Robertcameronmcmillan (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! When you attempt to upload the photo, what happens next? Are you given any error codes? Right now, I don't have enough context to answer your problem. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft: HeartMath Institute

Hello, thank you for your review. I have made the changes you've requested to the best of my ability, but do let me know if you notice anything I've missed. Chase Kanipe (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll allow someone else to review for now, though I did notice the changes on my watchlist. Wish you luck! Mach61 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mh23x11 (16:21, 30 December 2023)

How do I edit a celebrity's wikipedia page? --Mh23x11 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Click the [edit] or [edit source] buttons or the pencil icon  at the top of the page, or a section of the page. Please note that any edits to a living person's page must conform to the biography of living persons policy Mach61 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Kanye West-Drake feud

Hello. Thanks a lot for reviewing the article I created. I’d like to ask what was it about the article that wasn’t formal. I tried to copy the tone and wording from Shaq-Kobe feud and hiphop articles like Murder of Tupac Shakur. I’d love to hear your feedback. Thanks a lot Serrwinner (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:NOTTABLOID. The draft contains what I would consider to be an excess of quotations and blow-by-blow details, much of which will likely be of no long-term significance. The articles you cited, while imperfect, have the advantage of being about events decades in the past, such that we can use retrospective, secondary sources like books and documentaries. I would suggest you shorten the article to improve it's odds of being accepted. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot pal. I reviewed the article and the requirements by Wikipedia and you're right. I have tried to make necessary edits to fit in the scope of what you were telling me. I think now it fits within the scope of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Would you kindly take a second review and share with me your thoughts. Thanks a lot. Serrwinner (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

One more inclusion, I had to leave a few more quotations because they fit within the required context of explaining properly events that took place but I have removed over 90% of the others that weren't really relevant in any way. Serrwinner (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll let someone else review the article. Wish you luck! Mach61 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Raybillbarry1962 (14:32, 31 December 2023)

Can I have a page. I am a published author, and previously a professional actor and character model for advertising with a very large portfolio. --Raybillbarry1962 (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's strongly recommended that you don't attempt to write an autobiography; read Wikipedia:Autobiography for details.

For any Wikipedia article to be published, it would need to be supported by multiple reliable, independent sources with large amounts of coverage of the topic; personal web-pages, press releases, and interviews don't count. Mach61 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from ATN007 (04:43, 3 January 2024)

Hello how can i add a logo in Template box --ATN007 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to infoboxes, you must first upload an image of the logo, then click "edit template" on the infobox, and type the file name (with "File:" in the beginning) in the textbox under the text "image". Mach61 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect closure of EI RfC on RSN

Your closure of the EI RfC on RSN saying that there was consensus in favor of deprecation is simply incorrect. Only three respondents actually gave any arguments for #4, and all of them misunderstand what deprecation actually is, as was pointed out immediately in replies which were not countered. Long and vigorous is not the same as rigorous. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The anti-deprecation side was just Iskandar (who held the minority option 2 position) and VR. I don't give much weight to a few prolific repliers in a large discussion (see WP:BLUDGEON). If you still disagree, open a closure review at WP:AN. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what weight you did give, then. It's not a large discussion at all, especially for RSN. Deprecation and Unreliable are described in WP:RSP, so voters of 3 and 4 should be able to provide evidence for general unreliability or beyond, or cite/do so when asked. Asking this is not bludgeoning, even if it's by the same posters. A good indicator is that there's only ever one reply -- nothing gets heated. I am also wondering how you see that few option 3 voters differentiated their position from those favoring deprecation means that minority option 4 becomes consensus, rather than imposing opposite burden: option 4 voters must distinguish themselves sufficiently from GU, else join 4 to 3 and option 3 wins; or else join 3 with 2 and option 2 wins, etc. Where does this standard come from in RSN that you can interpret a consensus in this 4-option vote? SamuelRiv (talk) SamuelRiv (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Im planning on challenging this close, to be clear you are unwilling to adjust your closure? There appears to very plainly be no consensus for deprecation, and adding all the 3 voters to the deprecation voters is a straight forward misreading of their of votes. From your silence here I am assuming you decline to revisit the closure, correct? nableezy - 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As you have continued to edit since this message without responding, I have opened a close review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#RFC: Electronic Intifada. Thanks, nableezy - 21:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have closed that discussion as a clear consensus to overturn, and restored the discussion to RSN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

State Service for Antimonopoly and Control Over Consumer Market (Azerbaijan)

Cabinet of Azerbaijan The institution is mentioned in this way in the official article, but you find it unfounded and ignore the news on the President.az website.

Please learn more about Azerbaijani government institutions and review the article. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Caroutledge (03:10, 4 January 2024)

Hello. I started a draft page 6 days ago, but my account logged out and now I can't find the draft page. Can you tell me how to find it, please, thanks. --Caroutledge (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot locate the draft (I assume it was about "United Christian Ashrams"?) after a thorough search. One piece of information that may help locate it: what was the title of the draft after you made it? Mach61 (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback regarding draft

Thanks for the feedback on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmad_Bazzi There's a lot to learn here. After reading the guidelines on the notability of people, I've done my research and included reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you please have a look as your feedback is highly appreciated. Thank you Cookies look good (: Randomreader162 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll let someone else review the article for now. Thank you for taking the time to improve the draft. Mach61 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Re WP:CENTRAL

I don't know what the criteria are for listing there. But it seems odd that you would summarily revert this item that an editor at the discussion suggested be listed there. So I put it back. Let's talk. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The RfC isn't of sitewide relevance – it's a minor style change across articles in one narrow topic area Mach61 (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's of contral relevance, as it's about the ability of one narrow topic area to over-ride style guidelines. Did you read the discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

yes. I'm unconvinced; literally any disagreement about a guideline's applicability could be charachterized by opposing sides as a WP:CONLEVEL issue. We do not put every "deletionist" vs "inclusionist" battle at an AfD at CENT. Mach61 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I acknowledge that you're unconvinced. So what are the criteria? Who/how decides? Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I use the documentation at WP:CENT, which states that it should be used to draw attention to discussions regarding policies, guidelines or other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed. Simply wanting more discussion participants isn't a good enough reason on it's own; the RfC needs to be important. Mach61 (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Stefan Ytterborn

Hi Mach61, thanks for the feedback on my page Draft:Stefan Ytterborn

I am still unsure how to address the points that are preventing publication however:

1. What kind of other sources do I need to show? Is that fact that many of the sources I used are not 'enough' about Ytterborn? Would it help if I removed text, and their references, that are not about him (and are for example about his companies?) This is proving difficult now because there are only so many direct sources I can find for him - he is 100% genuine, and I've seen live Wikipedia articles that have a lot less information and references than this.
2. I'm struggling with the 'formal tone of voice'. What would be an example, from my draft, of writing that is NOT formal enough? I'm tried to keep it neutral but if you could point out where I have missed this, I'd really appreciate it!

Thank you Samwalker22 (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

1. @Samwalker22: Please do remove sources which do not discuss the subject in detail. Also note that while interviews, company pages, and other affiliated sources are useful for information, they do not show that the subject deserves an article, and an article cannot be based on them. That there are live articles with poor sources does not prove that this draft should be accepted, frequently those articles are nomimated for deletion
2. Sentences like Together with a team of designers, the result was IKEA PS (Post Scriptum), a collection based on strong, simple designs that continues to deliver functional, affordable interior collections in collaboration with selected designers, of which there are several in your article, are unencyclopedic. It delivers no substantial information once all puffery is stripped out; the sentence could be shortened to He collaberated with IKEA to create the PS (Post Scriptum) collection.

Mach61 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hi, thanks for accepting Rema discography to mainspace article, but can you please teach me how to create an article without using Article Wizard and submitting draft, i've been trying, but it's not working. thank you Yotrages (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yotrages: The instructions are at WP:How to create a page. I would recommend creating the pages as drafts first (so type in "Draft:" before the actual title), and then moving the pages to become articles by yourself, no AfC required. Mach61 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate your help. Yotrages Yotrages talk) 20:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

About the Ghost City Tokyo draft

I have included the content of this draft on Ayase (music producer). What's next for the draft? Is it merged with that article, or just deleted without further proceeding? I'd also want to inform you of this redirect I just created, just so you know about it. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft is left alone until G13’d, though you can speed up its demise with a G7 tag Mach61 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Page numbers

I see you've added a notice regarding page numbers to Bud Powell. I assume you're referring to Dance of the Infidels? I'm pretty sure I've cited page numbers for everything else. I would need to create a separate citation for every time I cite the book? I have been reusing citation. This isn't as large as a task as it sounds; I can absolutely do it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I would reccomend you use a {{sfn}} template for this purpose. Most FA-Class biography articles do this, if you want to see further examples of how shortrefs work. Also, thank you so much for the prompt response, I deeply appreciate it. Mach61 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I wasn't familiar with this template. I'll take a look for an example. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done all of the needed changes; however, they don't seem to be linking to the citation. The author and publishing year are the same, but the translator is different. Is there something else I need to do? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, what more can I do to bring the article to "good" status? I have more sources I could use, if needed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfie Citie: The links for all the sfns appear to work for me. Honestly, on the GA question, I say just start one right now. Maybe go to peer review first if you're patient. Mach61 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, someone actually fixed the issue with the citation after I asked the question on here, so yes, it is working now. Thanks again for the help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

About interviews as primary/non independent sources

Hi, I saw you declined my draft for Luigi Porto (living musician) because there were too many primary sources and the interviews were non-independent. Since I am new and this is the first page I am creating from scratch, being it my test ground for the other living musicians pages I have on my list, can you please explain this in detail when you have a moment? Mostly I would like to know

1) are all interviews considered primary sources? I was privileging them even in other articles I improved, for I thought they usually contain more informations than other kind of articles, but if editors consider them primary sources it means I need to be aware of it. 2) what does "non independent" exactly means for an interview? Thank you a lot. I am still learning. Best! B [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ilghibellinfuggiasco Interviews are very good sources of information, but they are non-independent by definition, because the subjects own words comprise the material. Mach61 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed the entry and added more independent and secondary sources, removing some primary sources. [[User:Ilghibellinfuggiasco|Ilghibellinfuggiasco]] (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Not An Angel

Good day, I have read WP:NOPAGE and I don't fully understand what you meant by "(so far almost all info in the article could be found in a database)". The information in the article was definitely enough and with context for a stand-alone article just like other articles I have created and I can't abandon a notable draft like that, a further explanation will help. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheChineseGroundnut There's so little information in the draft that our readers will not be better informed by a standalone article on the song vs all the infromation in the draft being put on the musicians page. Even a small amount on critical reception of the song or the song's content could justify an article Mach61 (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree but isn't that why it's called a stub? But it's cool, I'll try add some more info to the article. Thanks for the heads up though TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Review Request

Good day, I want to thank you for reviewing some of the drafts I created. I already added a critical reception to Draft:Not An Angel and I'd appreciate if you help me review "Draft:The Next Star Awards". Thank you TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheChineseGroundnut Like many other reviewers, I find the idea of reviewing-on-request to be unfair to other AfC submitters, so I won't do that now. That being said, it's probable I will review these at some point, simply because I monitor Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Media/Music. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Have a great day! TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Notifications

Regarding this edit: if you were trying to trigger an alert notification, note as per Help:Notifications § Mentions, this won't work when modifying an existing comment. You have to add a new, signed comment. If just trying to generate alert notifications for a few additional people while modifying an existing comment, then linking to their user page in the edit summary (as per Help:Notifications § Mentions in edit summaries) is one way to do it. isaacl (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, Mach61,

For pages like Lizet Benrey, you'll get a quicker response from admins patrolling CSD categories if, using Twinkle, you select CSD>G6 Move and then, in the field, put a link to the article you want moved to main space. The current tag has no active link so it requires admins to cut and paste the title for the draft in the URL bar which takes more time. And few admins will delete a main space page without viewing the article you want to move to main space.

If you correctly tag the redirect you want deleted, an admin can easily check out the draft, see that it is suitable for main space, and with one click, move the draft and delete the redirect with one edit. It's much easier than the way you are currently requesting a page deletion. I think if you adjust your way of tagging these pages, they will happen more frequently and won't be sitting around for hours. Thanks and good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. So what you're saying is that, instead of putting in [[Draft:{{PAGENAME}}]] in the db-afc-move box, I should put in the URL for the draft? Mach61 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Hey, welcome to the drive! I like that you have written a lot of articles about jazz musicians, which is one area that is underappreciated by Wikipedia editors. Anyways, you might be interested to take a look at Jazz uncited articles list and take a look at the instructions section. Otherwise, thank you for joining and good luck! You'll need it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I was thinking I might make try my luck PetScan query and pray to god it didn't time out, but all the heavy lifting's already been done. Mach61 (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft: blue food

Dear Mach61, thank you for taking the time to review my article pending for submission Draft:Blue food. Some of the things mentioned by you as reasons for declining the submission I cannot quite see in the article. Could you possibly clarify? 1. rewriting in an encyclopedic format: I believe structure as well as sources do already comply with the guidelines. 2. Neutral point: Could you point out which parts are not written from a neutral standpoint?

Thank you! Andrea Harmsen, expert for sustainability communication and content at the MSC (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@EN MSC The term itself appears to be identical in meaning to seafood, and as Wikipedia is not a dictionary we should generally not group information on identical subjects away from each other because the sources about them use different terms. That being said, an article could possibly be created if it was expressely about the term and how it came to be, but where the draft does discuss that (in the "Background" section) it reads like subtle agenda-pushing from an environmental NGO. A sentence like However, blue foods... have been excluded from the conversation so far. The United Nations wants to change that, while not prima facie incorrect or biased, has the effect of laundering the credibility of a very much loaded term. I am not accusing you, personally, of being an agenda pusher, just explaining why, if I approved this draft, it would likely be marked for deletion by a patrolling editor. Mach61 (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your quite valuable feedback! It's not about "whitewashing" a "much loaded term", but about explaining a new term:

Precisely because the term blue food is appearing more and more frequently - in the press and in public debate - we believe it should also be found as a separate term on Wikipedia.

While in English the terms seafood and blue food are actually synonymous by definition (even if not necessarily in the perception of many people, who would often not categorise algae or farmed fish under the term, for example), this is not the case in many other languages (e.g. German, Italian, French...)! While seafood is a purely English-language category, the term blue food is the first and only term used in many languages as a collective term for all foods from the water. In contrast to the seafood concept, the blue food concept is a global one.

It is not about persuading people to consume fish, but about taking a balanced look at the opportunities as well as the problems/risks of blue food/seafood production - from an ecological, socio-economic and nutritional point of view.

The FAO's call for fish/seafood resources to be included more in the discussion on concepts for feeding the world's population is also about taking greater account of the ecological benefits and nutritional opportunities of blue food, as well as the need to drive forward the fight against the negative aspects of blue food production (overfishing, threats to biodiversity, destruction of habitats, antibiotic contamination, introduction of diseases....). Minimising the negative environmental impact of fishing and aquaculture is a non-negotiable part of the "blue transformation" and THE basis for blue food to make a contribution to feeding the world's population in an ecologically and economically sustainable way!

Thank you for your valuable feedback, which we will be using to revise the article. Specifically, we will:

In the introductory part of the article, go into more detail about the term blue food (also in distinction to the term seafood) and its context of origin (where did this term suddenly come from, who is behind it).

Highlight the negative consequences of global fishing and aquaculture even more strongly and emphasise more clearly that minimising the negative environmental impacts of fishing and aquaculture is a central component of the blue transformation. Andrea Harmsen, expert for sustainability communication and content at the MSC (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@EN MSC. I wish you luck, but two notes. First, about your use of "we": Wikipedia has a rule against shared accounts. Please make an account for every individual editor. Second of all, look at WP:WORDISSUBJECT for guidance on how to make an article about a term, and perhaps browse Category:neologisms for existing articles to use as reference. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. Since I am linked to the organization I work for (which I also state transparently in my profile here on wikipedia), I am not expressing personal beliefs or opinions but rather choose to position the article amidst general frameworks and arguments. Hence, the phrasing with „we“. But I have no problem with writing comments exclusively in the first person in future if this seems more appropriate. I appreciate the concern however and hope I could clarify this. Andrea Harmsen, expert for sustainability communication and content at the MSC (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Kim Yu Kyong draft, a tricky situation

Hello! The Kim Yu Kyong article draft was declined by you. I understand the reasoning but its a little bit of a tricky situation because North Korea doesn't have that many sources to reference, its harder to find references without only passing mentions. I hope we can agree that Kim Yu Kyong is notable enough for an article and it is just the references that are the problem, The Moranbong Band is the most popular in North Korea and she is the lead singer. Other people in the Moranbong band also have articles. I would appreciate if you could help me with this, my family has some ties to the DPRK and I feel that artists from North Korea are not represented enough because people cant seem to look past anything other than the politics, and not many people actually look at the talented people in North Korea which are just like in any other country.

Thank You :) Choson113 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Choson113 See WP:BANDMEMBER. Unless there are sources covering her, specifically, in great depth, it makes sense from a reader perspective to add information about her in the Moranbong band article. Mach61 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your expert input in the Talia Ishai AfD and for being an awesome Wikipedian! gidonb (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chris Byars

On 27 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chris Byars, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that jazz saxophonist Chris Byars ended his childhood operatic career when his voice croaked during a performance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Byars. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chris Byars), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC follow up

Hi Mach61, thanks for reviewing my draft article Draft:Marty_Rifkin. I'm writing you because the book references indeed are more than just passing mentions. Reading the Hiatt (a longtime Rolling Stone magazine writer) book in particular is what inspired me to draft this article. I'm a big Springsteen fan, and this book goes in depth into almost every Springsteen album. The pages I referenced are primarily about the recording sessions for "The Ghost of Tom Joad". I particularly enjoyed Hiatt's discussion about Rifkin's unusual pedal steel guitar technique on this album: tonally Joad is fairly unique, folky/country-adjacent but very much with its own style, and this passage made me realize how much Rifkin contributed to that. The Dolan book also discusses Springsteen moving even more towards country based on the instruments (pedal steel guitar & Dobro) Rifkin played in the Joad sessions. The Hiatt book also mentioned that at the time of these sessions in 1995, Rifkin had just played on another favorite of mine, Tom Petty's "Wildflowers" album, which I had never made the connection before. I knew about all that Rifkin has done with Springsteen (which is documented extensively in one of my other favorite sites, Brucebase, which I also linked to), but learning more about his other work inspired me to collect it there. Gadd9 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gadd9 Thank you for correcting me. I will note that Brucebase shouldn't be used as a reference, as it is a user-generated source. Please flesh out the draft with more biographical details about Rifkin and re-submit. Mach61 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Get Loose Crew Follow Up

Hi Mach61, thank you for reviewing my page on Get Loose Crew! I appreciate your help and feedback on helping me adjust my article so that it correctly follows the wiki guidelines. Do you mind expanding on what specifically I need to change to solve this.

"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

I truly appreciate your help! Thank you!

Gentrit97 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gentrit97 the draft, as written, promotes the group too much. Take, for example the sentence The group's groundbreaking achievements have been recognized and celebrated by various media outlets, institutions, and industry professionals over the years. "Groundbreaking" is the type of informal, overflattering term that should pretty much never appear in encyclopedic writing; and, without naming what organizations have recognized the group, the sentence does nothing but inflate the group's importance whilst imparting minimal useful information to the reader.

Please read WP:Writing better articles and revise the draft accordingly; the issues with it are entirely solvable with enough work. Feel free to consult the Teahouse for advice. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mach61, Thank you for this info! You've been really helpful. I will try my best to edit it and remove any informal terms. Gentrit97 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: "Mark Prihodko" draft

Hello, @Mach61 . On 30 January you've declined this Draft:Mark Prihodko. (Previously it was declined by another editor; but I fixed everything he noted, gained his approval and resubmitted.) Quotations are fixed («» to "") as required. Descriptive NPOV is harder to achieve, but I did some changes. Please, review and note if there is something else left to fix before resubmitting. Thanks. Tacit Murky (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tacit Murky Like many AfC reviewers, I believe it would be unfair to other submitters if I re-reviewed drafts on ewquest. Please just resubmit the draft; that is the only review mechanicsm for AfC, pre-submission review is unnecesary. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did resubmit the draft; and it end up with you declining it again with the same «NPOV» reason. It would be more effective if you can specify problematic sentences. (I only see «prose» hint for the Education section.) Thanks. Tacit Murky (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tacit Murky I'd give This concept, where Prihodko is an art-director, joins visual, performing and culinary arts in a unified experience for the audience of Berlin as a poor sentence, but truthfully I remember being very sleepy when I reviewed the draft and on second viewing it shouldn't have been declined for NPOV. I haven't checked for WP:NMUSIC yet, though. Mach61 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

So much for a sleepy review ;)

I've made a few minor changes in appropriate sections. I still think a list for places of education is a better option, then a prose version, because of regularity of items: years, institution, city, country, degree, professor.

WP:NMUSIC is perfectly matched for at lest 4 points of that list and the «other» list. Should we go for another resubmission? Tacit Murky (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tacit Murky Please do resubmit Mach61 22:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Your support expansion

Thank you for your bold, plain and simple opinion! You said exactly what I was thinking in 3000 less bytes. Panini! • 🥪 02:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Panini! Thank you. I was added it since I didn't want my vote be dismissed as a pile-on early support in a (hopefully unnecesary) crat chat. Mach61 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Mach61. 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. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Notes To and From My Friends (February 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Randompersonediting was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Notes To and From My Friends and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

K-Pop contributor (✍️•📚) 04:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank You + Question

Hi Mach61, thanks for nominating me for autopatrol. Is the youtube problem the one referred to in #9 of the wikipedia guidance (listing search results)? How should I handle that in the future? I include the general search results because it gives the reader a broader overview of the composer’s works that are available on youtube. Is it preferrable to link to just one individual work on youtube? If yes, how do you let the readers know there are more works by that composer on youtube? Thanks!

~~~ T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@T. E. Meeks. The general approach taken is to link to individual videos. If a website has a curated directory of recordings listed, feel free to link that. Mach61 (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Please advise

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me with my draft. It is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Buszmail (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Buszmail thanks for the barnstar, but please note that everytime you edit it for formatting I get a notification saying I have a new talk page message. Mach61 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jesse260 (08:49, 19 February 2024)

Hello - I made two first edits. Just checking in to see if these are appropiate and what is expected. I assume that you can view my edits? --Jesse260 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jesse260 Apologies for my late response. I think your first edit a slight improvement over the original article, as well as your second edit. That being said, I would like to note that preemptively asking for evaluation of your edits isn't necessarily the best way to learn; more commonly, editors progress by simply doing whatever they think will improve the encyclopedia, and asking for feedback if someone else takes issue with their actions and undoes them. Next time you want advice, I would suggest you go ask for it at the teahouse, a Q&A forum for new editors. Mach61 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft review/advice request

Hello. I made a page that was moved to draftspace due to not satisfying WP:NPROF. However I found secondary sources and not rely on publications to prove notability as in WP:NPROF and the person that moved it to draftspace admitted it satisfied WP:BIO afterwards, however he wasn't fit to review it and directed me to AfC submitting. If it is alright with you I would like to ask you to review it Draft:Yasin Şöhret. I would highly appreciate it. Thank you Serrwinner (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Serrwinner Sorry, but I don't do reviews on request, as that would be unfair to other submitters. Please note that the AfC process is optional and that if you're certain of notability you may move the draft to mainspace yourself. Mach61 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. Sorry for any unprofessionalism displayed from my end for requesting like so. I wish I could move it but the person warned me not to move myself until a third party has reviewed it Serrwinner (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Best practice for redirecting album articles

If you are going to do this (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Best_of_Della_Reese_%281972_album%29&diff=1209595944&oldid=1204634747), please retain the categories and use {{r from album}}. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf sorry, guess I got lazy. Will fix. Mach61 (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries--I got you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

This is a common point of confusion, but just because the pages linked do not have a title that matches exactly does not mean they don't count for the purposes of WP:G14. See for example Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) or just all of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27. You could WP:PROD it, but frankly I am inclined to just redirect it since they both go to the same place. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:81E5:DB96:6EC9:D1D3 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Eastern Railway Line, Ghana

Hi, I'm writing about the AfC you declined: Draft:Eastern Railway Line, Ghana. You removed a citation to a research paper with the explanation "preprints are unreliable". Said paper, although not peer reviewed, was written by subject-matter experts and has received a significant amount of citations. After removing said source, you declined the submission citing lack of notability. Could you please explain:

• why do you deem said pre-print unreliable, given it is used to support a generally uncontroversial statement (dates on which the railway was built)?
• why would you rate a major railway as "non notable", especially given it has been discussed in scholarly sources?

I was about to accept the draft myself, but thought I would reach out first to understand your reasons. Broc (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Broc You're right that the source I removed is probably usable. I really don't remember much about what I did with that draft, but what probably happened is that I read all the sources and couldn't find two with SIGCOV (maybe there are, I'm not re-checking). But in hindsight WP:GEOROAD establishes notability regardless. Mach61 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I restored the source and moved the page to mainspace. Thanks! Broc (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Dhamrai Government College

Hello, I noticed that you removed the G11 template from Dhamrai Government College, stating it's not promotional, but I think it is indeed promotional. The 'Student Success' section is fully promotional, and another section named 'Sections' is also intended for promotion. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer there are less destructive alternatives to a G11 tag Mach61 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If you had said "Not promotional enough to justify speedy deletion" then I would have agreed with you. However, to say "Not promotional", without qualification, for an article containing the text "Various students of this college are in various big institutes of the country and have made the country bright. Many students are shining the name of this college" is surprising, at the least. JBW (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@JBW I thought that was implied :p. I'll try to be more detailed in my edit summaries Mach61 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Zsolt Palotai

Thank You for assessing the article and releasing it into main space. Aw, I'm gonna go ahead and say it: You made my day. Wish You a good one as well! --Ouro (blah blah) 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about Declined Article

I'm sorry if posting like this isn't common courtesy on Wikipedia, I'm still new to creating content on here after being a browser for so many years. I see that you declined my article, draft:swim school (band), and I'd like to ask what was done wrong. I had several sources that are independent of the band and talk exclusively about them, like the Atwood Magazine, Under The Radar Magazine, and others. All of these are respected organizations within the music industry so I don't see a reason they don't count under the Wikipedia guidelines. I worked hard to start this article and I plan to add a lot more to it going into the future, but right now I hope this issue could be better understood by me.

Thank you! Alondor28 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alondor28 apologies for not being upfront in my close. You are right that the sources are reliable, but three of them are interviews, which are not independent of the band (as it's their own words being used), and a source merely documenting their inclusion in the FIFA 24 soundtrack, which does not cover the band in any depth. That doesn't mean the sources shouldn't be used in the article (as they may provivde helpful information), but they do not establish notability. Mach61 00:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Mach61 for collecting more than 50 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: New York City Jazz (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Randompersonediting was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:New York City Jazz and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

K-Pop contributor (✍️•📚) 10:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Elextures (14:12, 12 March 2024)

maybe a dumb question here, but anyway, im from norway and would like for my english contributions to be apparent of my norwegian version of the site. is there a way to do so? the ground base of my question is; is my account on [en.wiki] the same as my account on [no.wiki]?, or are they technically separate? --Elextures (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Elextures: Your account is the same between the Norwegian wiki and English wiki, but your contributions are separate. That is to say, if you sign up on enwiki, you can reuse the same username and password combination on nowiki and log in there. However, article content on different language Wikipedias is not shared, such that an article in nowiki may not even exist on enwiki, or vice versa. Mach61 19:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Medicalisation of sexuality

On 14 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Medicalisation of sexuality, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that as a result of the medicalisation of sexuality, sexual disorders like erectile dysfunction have been used as a "penile health gauge" to measure general wellbeing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Medicalisation of sexuality. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Medicalisation of sexuality), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

When closing AFDs, you also need to remove the AFD tag from the article - and place a "kept" tag on the talk page. Within the discussion itself, you should furthermore place AFD top on the very top, not below the headline, as well as "subst'ing" AFD top and AFD bottom. I can't clean this up since I stated my keep opinion in the AFD, which goes to show that I'm talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Rose (band). Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Gumbi Ortiz

Much of the content at Gumbi Ortiz is not referenced, yet you accepted ot as an article. Why? David notMD (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO, article wouldn't be deleted at AfD. AfC isn't supposed to have high standards Mach61 19:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

David notMD, Mach61 is correct. I'm not happy about this, but it would be strange not to accept articles that are pretty feeble, given what is, in effect, the systemic tolerance of the vast number of very feeble articles that Wikipedia already has. (Consider one I came across the other day: The Pawnshop, in which a single assertion is referenced -- to a source published by Lulu.com.) The article Gumbi Ortiz has already improved (I hope) since when it was brand new, and you are of course welcome to add "citation needed" tags, to delete what's unsourced, or (if there are eight or more days in your week) to send the thing to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Judi Singh

On 22 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judi Singh, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that jazz singer Judi Singh's mother and father were, respectively, among the earliest Black and Sikh settlers of Alberta, Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judi Singh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Judi Singh), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Deprodding of Betrayer (band)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Betrayer (band), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shadow311 Surely it's different if the AfD resulted in "Delete", no? Mach61 16:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRODNOM 3.it has not previously been undeleted. Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

IPBE

I hardblocked a range, and made you IP block-exempt; I hope you don't run into difficulties because of someone else's childishness. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Mach61,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your Contributions to the Wikipedia page: Jorge Suarez (Pianist)

Hello, thank you for reviewing and accepting the article for Jorge Suarez. You did an edit that said: "overly detailed lists of performance venues belong nowhere, but especially not the lead." I was just wondering if shortening it to only a couple of concert halls and festivals would be fitting. And would it be okay to be on the lead or should we create another section?

Thank you Hkc345 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hkc345 I already left a message on your talk to this effect, but please don't edit that page directly again. And no, I don't think mentioning concert halls Suarez has preformed at would be helpful for anything other than promoting him. The paid editing tag will stay up until an uninvolved editor has determined that the article is fully compliant with our Neutral point of view policy, which it currently is not. Mach61 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mach, thank you for the feedback. Is there anyway to speed up this process? Or can you help me verify the article that it is fully compliant with the neutral point of view?

Thanks a lot

Hkc345 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hkc345 I, personally, have no interest in working on that article. However, if you would like to request edits to make the article's tone more neutral, you may do so by use of the {{Edit COI}} template on Talk:Jorge Suárez (pianist). I would suggest you avoid directly making a request to remove the paid editing tag; that would make you seem desperate, and lead to the request being declined.

Unrelated: I see you translated this page in Spanish at es:Jorge Suárez (pianista). Have you disclosed your payment, as is required by the Terms of Use for all Wikimedia sites? In addition have you followed the Spanish wiki's conflict of Interest guideline? Mach61 03:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not the one who translated the page into Spanish myself. It was only done using my account.

Thank you.

Hkc345 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Page Review

Hi @Mach61, can you review this draft article Draft:S. S. Karthikeya. Thanks in advance! Pulmowrites (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pulmowrites No, I don't do reviews on request, that is unfair to other people who submitted drafts and have to wait Mach61 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Rollin' Stone (Muddy Waters song)

Hello, Mach61,

It looks like you moved around this article but left the Talk page behind. Can you make sure that the article and Talk page are at the same page title? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

X3 vs R5 close

Thanks for attempting to close the RfC on improperly spaced redirects. It was a long time coming, and the decision was a bold one, which I can appreciate. I do think that it was improperly closed however, as "presuming [editor's] support" while ignoring the context on when the support !votes were cast was, in my opinion, was not the right call. The discussion and context before and after ~March 10th when X3 opposition vs R5 support was introduced, were entirely different from each other, and was ignored in the closing. Supports beyond that point were, in my eyes, mainly about "whether or not to have a speedy deletion criteria" and not about the actual structure of the criteria. Calls to remove the bullet points and/or make it permanent far outpassed the !votes to "support and delete these titles". Any discussion about the bullet points was negative and against. Only one editor explicitly supported X3 over R5. Any !votes that were just "support" I feel are primarily neutral on the classification, rather than "in support of X3". Even then, most people after March 10th were directly stating R5 as their support, (relevantly, not X3). In any case, I feel the right call here would have been consensus to enact a CSD criteria, but no consensus on whether or not to enact as X3 or R5 (and thus requiring a followup). I see no consensus that X3 was favored out of these two. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes Just confirming I have read this and will give a response tomorrow. It's late where I am now. Cheers, Mach61 01:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. As a disclosure, I am fully intentioned on starting a follow-up RfC on whether to make this permanent, and another on whether to remove the bullet points from this currently temporary criteria (as these were two highly discussed, unaddressed criticisms with the proposal that most people only spoke in favor for.) I think it'd be useful to not be hasty with the establishment of a new CSD criteria, especially when the details have only had a negative reception, even if people are okay with the scope getting deleted. The criteria should not be implemented sooner than the details being agreed upon, which has not been the case. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes Sorry for the delay. No, I don't think my close was improper. The overwhelming feeling among supporters of the proposal was "lets stop wasting community time (in RfD) discussions and approve this"; delaying implementation with a third RfC on this matter over a fairly small issue would go against that sentiment. Cheers, Mach61 03:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well you're wholly wrong on your assessment. This case fundamentally has WP:NORUSH. These titles have existed between 0 to 20 years, and never once was there a need to "act fast". Basically everyone involved has universally backed off of sending these targets to RfD, in hopes of a good solution to be formed, so there is no stress on RfD in the slightest as it stands. It is far too soon to introduce a CSD criteria which currently contains catastrophic errors as written, just to "stop wasting community time" as perceived. It's never a waste of time to discuss still-unaddressed issues that will leave lasting consequences on page histories from as early as 2002. I'm surprised that you call this a "small issue" when the current system is fundamentally worse than the status quo on how these pages are vacated, which is through page movement and redirect suppression.

The current way of dealing with these titles is through a combination of G6, R3, and page moving without leaving behind redirects. The bullet points, which have never received support beyond what was initially stated, suggest that "correct titles should be created and the original pages should be deleted". This is, by all accounts, a worse solution than moving the page. What we will now see is a set of hundreds to thousands of redirects, all created in May 2024 by the same handful of 2-5 users, all devoid of their initial context, creators, and edit summaries, which were deleted without considering alternatives. The page history may still have to get removed when needed, but at least by removing the bullet points from the CSD, we won't be encouraging users to scrap WP:ATD when ATD was always the first and foremost thought within the status quo. And when all of these get deleted and recreated between May and August or something, and the temporary criterion expires for no reason, we'll literally be back to nominating these to RfD despite the overwhelming consensus (which you've identified) being that they should be deleted. All of this has been aired and available for months, even if people are neutral about the "specifics" of how the titles get deleted, "as long as they get deleted". Some people do care though, about not needlessly deleting old histories when there are other ways of vacating a title.

Now, not that it's especially relevant, but you've only nominated two titles total to RfD, and both unanimously closed as "keep". There's a high chance, from what I can tell, that what you're closing will not affect you or your edits at all. This is a "clean-up" task for an initial rollout of a CSD criteria that is being designated to... nobody knows who, to delete... nobody knows how many articles; none of this was ever worked out nor declared in the closing statement. User:Steel1943 and I, and a few other editors and IPs, have been the primary senders of these titles to RfD, and this is directly influencing what will (presumably) be our new workflow. I'm not without my own biases of course, and it's somewhat disheartening to me personally knowing that once these all get deleted in the next few months, and thusly "undone" as a CSD criteria by September 2024, I and others will be stuck back on RfD as the only option to delete these same types of titles, despite the intention being to avoid RfD entirely in the first place (hence this RfC existing to solve a problem), and despite the consensus for deletion already being seemingly firmly established (to speedy delete). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

All good about the delay, was busy today as well. Will be opening up the follow-up discussions tomorrow (for making this permanent, and for removing the bullet points). Ctrl-Fing the phrase "bullet point" exclusively shows calls for removal, with zero people implying support for the bullet points. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes

W/r/t the bullet points: I understand that you are very concerned about them, but out of all the participants in this large discussion, I count only three who explicitly came out against them (you, Novem Linguae, and Swatjester). That's not enough to substantially influenece any close, no matter how strong the arguments are. That being said, a follow up RfC to remove them is a reasonable idea, though I would suggest waiting a week or two to gather a reasonable sample size under the status quo.

W/r/t the criterion being temporary: This was brought up by a sizable minority of participants, and I would have avoided closing this as I did if approving X3 would rule out the possibility of an R5, but it doesn't. If, after expiration, these sorts of redirects prove to be an issue again, another discussion can be held.

Cheers, Mach61 23:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

AfC

Hello~ First of all, I want to thank you for giving your time to review! I just login again (after months... well...) and take a look at my draft. I'm not sure about details (since no comment written by the reviewer like the first one; only template)... and found out other users had done some edits and maybe fixed the problems already? I add the hatnote tho, because "formal tone" perhaps referring to not using the surname? If you don't mind, I would like to ask you to give your opinions about the current draft. I appreciate your help a lot. Miracle for0110 (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Miracle for0110 If you think the issues with a draft have been resolved, please resubmit it or move it to become an article yourself Mach61 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)