User talk:WikiAviator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hong Kong Airlines

Hi. You started the GAR review at Hong Kong Airlines, but you need to choose whether it should be an individual review or a community one. Just click on the one you want and it will open a new page. There you can say why you think it fails the WP:Good article criteria. If you choose individual you close it at the end. If you choose community someone else will close it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please welcome others in their talkpages instead of their userpages

Please welcome others in their talkpages instead of their userpages, thanks! I've moved most of them to the right place.--94rain ^Talk 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

File:ZIPAIR Tokyo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Article about aviations services companies

Because You write on aviation topics, I thought maybe it would be interesting for you to have cooperation writing articles about international aviation services companies. I have prepared texts and all needed secondary resources. Now I need Wikipedia experienced editor to review the article and successfully post it.

Could You help me with this freelance work or maybe you have someone to suggest?

Thank You in advance for Your help. I am looking forward to Your answer.

American Airlines

revision Latest revision as of 02:53, 23 May 2019 WikiAviator I had to remove your ref it leads only to a map you will have to find a secondary source and not American Airlines as to source ~ by the way nice meeting ~ let me know if I can help you in any way Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page ~ I reverted my edit on american airlines ~ I will try to find a second source to back up the primary ~ once again thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Clan Moncreiffe

Hi - I was not sure why you removed the link to Moncreiffe House? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Adele Live

Most of the remaining dates were postponed and then cancelled, so I thought it would be easier to just removed the pre-postponed dates and leave the ones that were eventually canceled. Also I changed the opening acts so that all could be on the table, instead of their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8300:1475:817D:AE08:CCD9:B4B3 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Australian Independents

This site is constantly being sabotaged by someone with an axe to grind.

I have been attempting to place correctly sourced information on the site. The other person, who if you check their editing history, appears to be obsessed with and stalking Dr Patricia Petersen, the founder of the Australian Independents.

As a result, the person appears to be violating wiki policies, guidelines and codes of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.222.2 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabucho181

Hi WikiAviator – I noticed you added a sockpuppet investigations report for Gabucho181 and requested a CheckUser. Just to let you know, CheckUsers are not allowed to publicly connect an account with an IP address, so your CheckUser request will likely be declined. In addition, I noticed the report didn't include any evidence showing why you think this IP is a sockpuppet. If you suspect this IP is a sockpuppet of Gabucho181, you should edit your sockpuppet investigations request to include evidence as to why you think that is the case. (Note that I am not an administrator or a CheckUser, nor am I a SPI clerk -- I just saw the open SPI case and decided to pass on this advice.) Much thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiAviator, I rolled back your edits to this SPI. This is not the only SPI in which you said absolutely nothing and requested CU inappropriately. If you can't file an SPI properly, don't file it at all. It's a waste of our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

New World Pictures

The IP edits here are a long-term, IP block evasion case. This is why IanDBeacon cited WP:BANREVERT here. (The IP user's extremely aggressive edit summaries were also a pretty good tip off.) I deleted their edit summaries, blocked the IP, and protected the page. There is no need to report users to ANEW for a single revert, especially when that revert is obvious vandalism. WP:AIV is a good place for urgent response to vandalism, WP:ANEW tends to have a somewhat slower response time and is for cases of edit warring, not vandalism. ST47 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Acropolis Aviation

Hello, WikiAviator. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Acropolis Aviation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi WikiAviator. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you but I'm not a new editor.

I'm simply an IP that due to the nature of general Wiki-filibustering of (often) poor ideas and (often) lack of knowledge does not believe in creating an account and I never will create an account. I sometimes stop by to fix bias in contentious articles (such as the one you found me on). Where trolls like to roam and push agendas (such as the deletion of all references to the country of Greece or Greek empire on Wikipedia). Thanks all the same but I will not be registering an account, now or ever. --2001:8003:6450:C400:9D72:3EB1:BC95:7F6D (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the warm welcome and the tips, it is much appreciated.

Thallactle (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki

Hello, WikiAviator, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:53, 15 October 2019 (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.
  

Mz7 (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

You have recently nominated a bunch of articles for deletion on the basis of dead links. Dead links aren't a reason for deletion, they're a reason to update the links. Some of your rationales verge on allegations of bad faith against the editors who created the articles - you appear to be implying that they are hoaxes because you can't be bothered to look for updated links. Please rethink your approach to deletion criteria before you make any more deletion nominations. Deletion nomination is not a way to force reference improvement. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ZIPAIR Tokyo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ZIPAIR Tokyo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kowloon Development Company

The article Kowloon Development Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neither the given links nor my searches are showing anything to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GSS ^💬 12:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Synergis

The article Synergis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neither the given links nor my searches are showing anything to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GSS ^💬 12:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Kowloon Development Company for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GSS ^💬 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Precedent

Is a marvellous way to think about things, if you are really serious about Edward Collinson as a delete candidate, then in practice, you have all of these to consider as well - https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Australian_politics&importance=Unknown-Class&quality=Stub-Class where in many cases they are not as carefully located in context as that of the editing of user Doug Butler. What I would suggest, either go for the lot, or none at all, to choose Dougs editing is a poor catch - as he is one of the more meticulous editors in the Australian project. Really from standard editing etiquette in the Australian project, and the subsidiary project of Politics, to have served as a politician is sufficient to stand alone without hindrance or prejudice. I trust you know how to withdraw gracefully. cheers. JarrahTree 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Random for CSD is a very good way to go. However, just when you hit that article, it is a sore point for me, as I see articles in the Australian politics set that are nowhere as good as Doug's article. It is assumed someone who has served in public office in Australia that they are able to have an article, however poorly created.

As to your choice and confusion, sorry - it is up to you, I am challenging your prod against the issue of precedent as there are thousands of Australian article of lesser quality that do not get challenged at all. It is your option, leave it and wait till others respond, or withdraw it - all up to your judgement, it is because i have it on watch, and am impressed by the thoroughness of Doug as an editor, I am defending it - and will continue to do so in the knowledge of the other thousand or more articles that exist that are not as good. I have probably confused you further. cheers. JarrahTree 07:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you have got it very very wrong - you do that, and there are thousands of others that are poorer quality, and you are confusing an issue - the Australian politics project has people that have served in public office, and there are articles should not be deleted by some other criterion. Otherwise the 'cherry picking' that is random, falls down where it fails to understand local context. JarrahTree 07:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing that I can see in the entries possible in the Australian national library aggregator Trove that actually refute his notability, he was a significant person in Western Australia and South Australia...so your summary for prod, I beg to disagree JarrahTree 07:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking in here, perhaps I can help. Collinson was a member of the South Australian House of Assembly and is therefore notable. So is every member of every state and national legsilative body, present and past. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: Okay. I know what you mean. Actually I added a section to your talk page about how to revert a mistakenly published article back to draftspace, could you help? ThanksWikiAviator (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH

Hi there. (1) Please confirm that you have read and understood Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH. (2) regarding the AfD source. Please do not repeat the links that you have already presented in your previous comments, doing so shows you in bad light, as it appears as though you are trying to pass 1 source as 2. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Foremost, I clearly understand WP:ORGDEPTH and I think that the sources pass the criteria. Moreover, I am too busy (in real life) to check which sources have been mentioned before. I am in no means trying to pass one source as two, I simply didn't check. If this has confused you, then i sincerely apologize. Also, please do not jump the gun right away and assume I am in bad light. This makes people feel offended and please learn how to assume good faith (WP:AGF). Thanks for your understanding:) WikiAviator (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, fine. I will respond at afd. I gave u the chance to correct. DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Hi, may I know what's the reason for you to put this on my talk page? What have I done that made you do this? Revenge? You started the whole thing. I duplicated the sources and I don't think this is wrong. You think it is not okay. Fine. You do your own thing. I am just responding to your comment and I didn't attack you. Yes, i am agressive, but it doesn't mean you can attack me. I have the right to publicize this to defend my reputation. I have the right to be sarcastic, I have my right to be angry, as long as I am not editing in a disruptive manner. Don't stand in my way. If you still want to solve the problem about the AfD, then reply on that page instead of issuing me a "notice". I hope that you understand. Thanks:). Yours, WikiAviator (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, Please click WP:ACDS (and the links in the template) to understand why this template was given and what it means. You are editing India related topics and all Indian topics are under ACDS. Also note that every one editing here need to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

also Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts

WP:BATTLE DBigXrayᗙ 08:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray:Then what have I done that made you put this thing here. Of course I know the guidelines and I am civilized, okay? And could you answer me? Why did you put this banner on my talk page and will this restrict my editing? Thanks WikiAviator (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tt is an alert, see the link about alerts above. No, it does not restrict you in any way. It is to remind you about a lot of important things. It is not possible for me to mention every thing, which is why I posted a few links for you to check. regards.

also note wP:CIVIL is not about being civilized or uncivilized. Please click and read. DBigXrayᗙ 08:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for effectively devaluing my English standard again. PLEASE READ:

• Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
• Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.
• Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same.

This is from the "in a nutshell" part. Isn't this related to being civilized and being ethical? Please improve your English standard if you find it hard to comprehend this simple policy. I am happy to help.WikiAviator (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Just check Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors and do the needful. That's all. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible Template:Ds/alert abuse by DBigXray. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:08:35, 23 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Athousanddaysbefore

• Athousanddaysbefore (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Black Heart Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'd like to kindly request your assistance with the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Black_Heart_Saints

It seems that you've rejected the article using the previous message that it received the last time it was reviewed, but provided no further insight. With each submission, I've added more internationally trusted sources to this article. Can you please elaborate more on what will be needed to approve this article? The subject is notable based on the inclusion of the band on the Billboard charts, internationally-known festivals, and awards.

Thanks for your time.

Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Athousanddaysbefore: As you can see, the sources you've added are no way "international", and the websites may not be credible and the coverage may be trivial (one-time mentions). Also, most sources are from Austin, which could not verify its notability since we need at least nation-wide sources. I biggest problem of your article is that the notability isn't proven therefore you have to work on gathering RS for the article to pass the AfC criteria. WikiAviator (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAviator: Would these two satisfy the requirements? The following are two articles. One is from Vintage Guitar, a recognized print magazine based in the U.S. and the other is a print magazine based in the UK: https://www.vintageguitar.com/34632/sweetwater-studios-announces-recording-master-class-with-texas-hard-rockers-black-heart-saints/ https://devolutionmagazine.co.uk/2019/10/15/review-black-heart-saints-misery-ep/

@Athousanddaysbefore: No, these are not credible. WikiAviator (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAviator: How can you say these are not credible when one of them has a Wikipedia article? Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Athousanddaysbefore: if you read the article, it is about vintage guitars itself, but not the magazine, therefore there are no articles that demonstrate the notability of the sources or the subject. WikiAviator (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Synergis moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Synergis, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. The only independent source is the SCMP, and that source is a very obvious press release slightly disguised as a newspaper article. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: No, I mean the draft I reviewed, which is Draft:Astranis mentioned on your talk page. Could you help revert the article back to draftspace? Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Astranis

I may do things out of sequence, but I keep track. I've moved Astranis back to draft. While checking, I also saw the article on Synergis. I moved that to draft also.

And are you also Use:IlysianCaryatid  ? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean that one is my other account? No, my only accounts are WikiAviator and User:Josephshlee (preserved after name change due to prevention of impersonation, approved by account creator)

Also, could you delete the Synergis draft since after being in WP for approximately a year, I realize that this article, one of my early works, would have 0% possibility to be published since it is really NOT NOTABLE and not credible sources could be found.WikiAviator (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Diatribe at AfD

You have just posted a 1000 word diatribe against a fellow AfD contributor. This sort of behavior will not be tolerated again. You have been warned accordingly. Comment on the content, see WP:NPA--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: You seem not to understand the essence of WP:NPA. It means we have to only talk about content instead of an individual person. Did I comment on your person? I only commented about your sources and quoted your flooding of messages on my talk page and saying that you are trying to defame me. Just defending myself and stating that someone is attacking me and giving a fact-based rebuttal. Is that called personal attack? WikiAviator (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, You will get your chance to explain all you want when I bring this up for formal sanctions, next time you repeat it. You can save your explanations for that occasion. regards. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray:So now I shut up and u shut up and not talk to each other unless necessary, deal? You do yours and I do mine. It doesn't matter about our philosophy unless we talk. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, No. you have to follow what has been listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors. Any repeated violation will be appropriately handled by the admins. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray I did not say I will not follow. I just don't want any conversation to continue further to avoid dispute as shown in the guidelines. Do you understand? WikiAviator (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Geological Perspective Correlation

Hi, thank you for your attention to my article. 1. You wrote that in my draft "Perspective Geological Correlation" "part of the article is copied from another Wikipedia article". The reference link points back to my article. 2. The last four months I am working on the article with wiki editor CaptanEek. Yesterday I published a new draft that contains 25 references. If you have more remarks, I will be glad to discuss them. Thank you.Nabatoff (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nabatoff: Firstly, another Wikipedia article is not supposed to reference a draft. Please explain more about your point 1. Secondly, for the 25 references, some of them like geoworld are unwanted since they may not be credible. However, the books do look okay. But here the main problem is the lacking of citations, since your draft is indeed very very long, the references are clearly not sufficient since you need one reference per fact to probe that your facts are true. For example, in your introduction section, there is only one citation, which is clearly not enough. Feel free to contact me regarding the AfC submission:) WikiAviator (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on it. The matter of the article is very important because it is the only really geological quantitative law in the last century. Nabatoff (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kotigobba 3

I have added a few more references to this. Let me know if I need to add some more. M4DU7 (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Not enough, you have to have one source per fact to verify the authenticity of the fact.WikiAviator (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which fact is unsourced? M4DU7 (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Geological Perspective Correlation

Hi, I maid changes in the article according your remarks: 1. I rewrote the Overview that had a part copied from wiki article "Lithostratigraphy". 2. I change the points of reference. Now the introduction has seven references, an all facts are supported with publications. I would like to mention that the length of the article is influenced by two factors, which were demanded by the first wiki editor CaptanEek: the article has to be understandable by a not professional, and the number of figures has to be decreased (which is difficult to compensate with words when describing a geometrical theory). I also disn't find the reference to the site "geoworld".Please, clarify. Are there any more remarks? Nabatoff (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi WikiAviator! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 07:50, Monday, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

New page reviewer granted

Hi WikiAviator. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM 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. 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. 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:15:06, 2 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Geo.hegel70

• Geo.hegel70 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jim Pascoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I'm trying to figure out how to create a page on the writer Jim Pascoe. I understand that wikipedia is not for author promotion, but several of his books already have article pages on this site. I guess i'm not sure what kind of reference you guys are looking for so that this page qualifies. I see a lot of other pages for other writers I'm into that don't have that much supporting reference. Can you please help? Thanks!

-geo

Geo.hegel70 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MarkH21. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ian Camfield, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— MarkH₂₁^talk 08:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this was unintentional; I re-instated it as patrolled. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

William N. Robertson

You are correct the sources are improved from when you reviewed the article. However, the four sources (not three) present adequately cited all the information and I see no inherent reason to be skeptical of the 19th century newspapers presented. I am not seeing a failure to verify the information which is what the tag suggests is a problem. Your comment suggests issues with notability. This puzzles me too. The claim to notability is strong if the facts are true. I'm not saying the article at the time of your review was perfect, but I think it more than adequate as a new article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Will be less stringent on sources. For my comment, I only want to tell him that every fact has to be adequately sourced to prove its authenticity and notability. Cheers, WikiAviator (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Haibatpur Union

May I please draw your attention to the fact that this was nowhere close to A1. A1 is for the cases one really can not identify the subject of the article. Here, it was clear what the article is about, and it also had two references. I declined the speedy, you are welcome to nominate the article at AfD, however, in the future be more careful please.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Submission Rejection of Laundry By Time Signature

Hello there,

I am confused about the continuous rejections of the page I am trying to create. This laundry company is covered by the top 3 newspapers of Nigeria and they have published articles solely and exclusively about the company. Can you please clear this situation for me so I can understand what is it that I'm doing wrong? I will be thankful!

Cheers! Nayab.khawar93 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Page Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laundry_By_Time_Signature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayab.khawar93 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nayab.khawar93: Please note the following and make relative adjustments to your draft:

1. The PressReader sources are duplicate and are trivial mentions.
2. The This Day Live source is an article in disguise of an ad, with numerous non-NPOV (see WP:PEACOCK) descriptions of the company.
3. The website of the company doesn't count as a source as it is not independent.
4. The "The Nation Online" source is also promotional, with wordings like "distinguished leadership in promoting the role of standardization in eradicating the global barriers to trade.", clearly showing its advertising elements.
5. All sources circle around a single event - A laundry award, which is not sufficient in establishing notability.

As such, not a single source could support the notability of the topic, therefore the article fails all notability guidelines, no matter CORPDEPTH or GNG. As minimal improvement has been made even after several declines by reviewers, it is expected that the author of the article make significant improvements to the article and addresses all problems mentioned by all reviewers before re-submission. Please note that if adequate improvements are not seen in your re-submission, the draft may be rejected (could not be submitted again), permanently deleted or even be creation-protected (administrator's approval required to create article) if the subject of the article is deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia or is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Thank you for your attention. WikiAviator (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAviator: Hello, thank you for your quick and detailed response. I am new here so I do not understand many things but I am willing to make all changes required and learn to do this the right way. The only solution I see is to post original newspapers in the references, and then resubmit the article again, with all changes made. Is there a way to cite original newspapers as a reference? Especially if these newspapers do not have digital records? As usual, your help will be appreciated.

Cheers!

RE: Draft:Change of fortune paradox

I think reviews need to be more specific about what's original research. The article follows Arata Takeda's history of the problem. Only three things in it are not in Takeda's history, namely Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath. I take it that they could be added later though, after the piece might be accepted.

First issue is, it is difficult to tell if you think that even the earlier history compiled from Takeda does not count as a reliable third party source-- the information about Vettori, Castelvetro, Xavier and Lessing. I'm not Arata Takeda. He's a different person from me. I'm putting his history into the article so that his role is like that of a news journalist. Only Murnaghan, Bouchard and Heath are not in Takeda.

What if Murnaghan, Bouchard and Heath are deleted? Then if the article is accepted in Wikipedia, then later those other things from the history could -- potentially -- be added, and best by someone else?

The other issue is this. I think you may be making too much of Takeda's misinterpretation of Halliwell. Sometimes someone gets something wrong. There is a CONSENSUS that he is wrong, so that seems to justify mentioning this one fact. You are overreacting by saying it's original research.Cdg1072 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cdg1072: Thanks for your inquiry. In fact, the reason why I am declining your submission is not because of your sources, it is because it is like a university essay that is about your own findings. First things first, this is not a widely accepted term. Second, if its a finding or an idea of your own, even if you've added a million sources, it would still be original research. Wikipedia is not a place for thesis and academic journals, it is an encyclopedia that explains things that are existent and notable. I hope that you understand why is your submission declined. (PS: Please do not add messages on top of my talk page, instead press the "new section" button to create a new topic at a bottom.)WikiAviator (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ref improve tag

Doesn't help editors nor articles. Only makes them look ugly in the time being..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't know which review you're referring to. Second, these tags do help reviewers see if the problem is solved and inform editors of which areas need important. I do not understand how do these tags make the article look ugly. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey really?

I've been writing articles for a decade. I know what I'm doing. I started writing this just a few minutes ago, give me a break. There's a lot more sources and information to add. ɱ (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ:OK, I understand. But I've looked up for sources but found zero coverage about the bridge, only coverage about the suspension of events and another bridge called East Link in the other Dublin, Ireland. Honestly I don't see any RS. WikiAviator (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Google is not the only place for sources, and depending on your locale you may see more on Ireland than the U.S., that's how they personalize results. There's plenty out there, I'm still adding some tonight and more tomorrow. ɱ (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator: The article, which was only 45 minutes old when you tagged it for PROD, made the following sourced claim in its lead: The bridge is the only single-tower S-shaped suspension bridge in the world. That is clearly a claim of notability. PROD is for articles that obviously and uncontroversially does not belong in an encyclopedia. Please be more careful with your tagging. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the second warning (the first one was mine above). If you get the third one, I may remove the reviewer flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Review of Johann Jimenez-Cohen

Hi, can you please indicate why you tagged Johann Jimenez-Cohen as reviewed? It is a hoax, created by a brand-new editor and moved to mainspace by "another" brand-new editor who had previously created a rejected draft about the same person. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: I have no idea what you're talking about since I couldn't view deleted pages and I don't find any evidence that shows that it is hoax. Also, I don't think that brand new is a problem, as long as the article itself is OK. Maybe it was vandalized after review. Thanks, WikiAviator (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh, what? If it was "vandalized after review", it would have been reverted, not deleted, with the editors creating it blocked as hoaxers. You "don't find any evidence that shows that this is a hoax", despite there being absolutely zero reliable sources about the person, the claims in the article being way over the top, and the draft having been deleted as a hoax already in February (see Draft:Johann Jimenez-Cohen)? The article was never "OK", and with dubious or ery dubious pages, the editor being brand-new is a problem, and a brand-new editor moving an article from draft where it has been created by another brand-new editor should be a warning sign that something fishy may be going on. Please be a lot more careful when reviewing articles, as it is not helping (quite to the contrary) if we have editors marking pages as reviewed which turn out to be hoaxes (quite blatantly, like here), or speedy deletable like Brendan Byrne (Australian Actor) (reviewed by you, G11 afterwards), May O'Neill, Thomas Andrew Calvert Murrell, and Joan Janet Bayliss (all 3 reviewed by you, G12 afterwards). These are all from your most recent reviews, so your success rate is rather low here. Fram (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to pile on, but it may be worth quoting a few prominent lines of the deleted article at the time of review (attributable to Andrewyoung3): "He is currently the richest man of the world ... with a net worth of $246 billion... currently valued in $350 billion... He is the sole owner of Intelsat after paying a sum of €5 billion in 2019. [8] He is also the owner of Intel..." -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fram:@Zzuuzz: Sorry for being careless since I'm really busy. I'll be more careful in the future and really "read" the whole thing cuz previously I only look at sources. Thanks for your advice:) WikiAviator (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft

Hi. As to the draft you just declined (Draft:Israel Taekwondo Federation), I was wondering whether you looked at the talk page. There are a couple of reasons there. One (which because it is not the only one does not attract OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an issue) is that other such national taewondo national organizations at the project also have similar or lower levels of references as this draft. Such as Austrian Taekwondo Federation, German Taekwondo Union, Italian Taekwondo Federation, Philippine Taekwondo Association, Ghana Taekwondo Federation, etc. Please look at them. I think that for Olympic-qualifying-national-sports organizations - certainly in this and similar sports - this is the common level of coverage in wp articles across the board. --2604:2000:E010:1100:F893:8426:4115:54F7 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:E010:1100:F893:8426:4115:54F7: First, I am not required to look at the talk page, but rather the article itself. I don't know what on earth are you trying to do on the page since you're basically making a monologue of justification on the talk page instead of a "real" discussion. Anyway, now that you reminded me of this, I gave it a read. What you said is totally invalid. I (normally, unless I see obvious big problems which lead to an outright decline or reject) review articles by picking the one source that looks good, one that looks not so reliable, one book (if a Google Books link is provided), and one source in the original language of the topic (if not in English and it would be Google Translated because sometimes only local language sources could prove notability). The book and original language source is picked randomly. I think that these 4 categories are fair enough to determine the notability because I am not required to read all sources like a proofreader. Let's analyse these selected sources one by one.

1. The Israeli (Google translated) source (חיים כהן התגוננות ;רחוב כהן) doesn't seem to have any link to the subject > invalid (correct me if I'm wrong since I don't know Israeli)
2. The Google Books source is a directory with numerous addresses and phone numbers > trivial
3. The Jerusalem post which is apparently credible is routine coverage which does not talk about the org itself, but only states its banned from participation, which is trivial since what we want isn't that kind of routine announcement like "ABC company is listed, XYZ is appointed chairperson of ABC company, ABC's stock prices plunge" kind of stuff, but instead coverage of the org's history, development etc. > trivial
4. The official website source which looks uncredible on first sight really isn't credible, since official websites aren't RS > non-RS

Regarding your talk page message and this message which are near-identical, we are not here to compare with those bad articles, and we are here to make sure that the articles submitted are up to standard with adequate referencing. As I see no sources demonstrate the notability of the subject, this is declined. I hope that you understand the rationale behind this and resubmit the draft that is up to standard.

Thanks for responding. Just getting back to you for now on your first two clarifications.

1. Thanks for telling me that you as a reviewer of a draft considered for promotion are not required to look at the draft article talk page. I had thought that the talk page was the place for me to leave a message for a reviewer - so I guess I was wrong. Where then should I leave a message for all the future reviewers of a draft, whose identities I don't know?

2. I was surprised to see that you review draft articles by picking and looking at only four sources in the article to determine the notability. I understand that as you say you are not required to read "like a proofreader." But I would think that before you make a decision on a draft article that it is not ok, you would read all sources. So thanks for correcting my understanding. Can you point me to where the rule is on wikipedia so I can become more knowledgable? 2604:2000:E010:1100:417:138:DDC2:24B8 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:zzuuzz - can you take a look at this decline please, looking at the talk page of it at Draft talk:Israel Taekwondo Federation? From the below, I see this editor can at times make a mistake perhaps. And you are an admin I see. So it would be great if you gave it your own look and review. My effort to discuss above went nowhere. Thank you. 2604:2000:E010:1100:A5AE:3654:8F39:9794 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

2604:2000:E010:1100:A5AE:3654:8F39:9794 I don't think I need to read all the sources. Imagine if a page has 30 sources, you think I'm reviewing all of them? Is that possible and efficient? I see experienced reviewers like Sulfrboy and DGG who review pages at a 2 page per minute speed but their reviews are largely uncontested. Do you really think that they've reviewed ALL or MOST sources? I don't think that's the case and according to the reviewing instructions, I'm not required to do so. If most sources do not meet notability guidelines, this leaves some facts poorly sourced, which is an immediate fail for AfC since EACH AND EVERY fact must be supported by qualified sources or it would be contested. I hope you understand. Also, I'm a recent participant in NPP as well as AfC, and the recommendations by admins are only related to NPP, which has different guidelines, so this isn't a reason why my AfC review is contested. Thanks. (PS: If you wanna inform a reviewer of something, please add a comment below the submission box. Also, we are NOT assuming that an article is meant to be approved or declined and need to prove everything to decline an article. We are neutral. If we find a problem that makes it not up to standard, it is a decline. If we found little problems and that the overall quality is not comprimised, it is an accept.) WikiAviator (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:55:40, 23 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by IMBA wiki

• IMBA wiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jürgen Knoblich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Review of submission Wiki page Knoblich

Hi there, you mention that the problems are not solved - could you specify which problems weren't solved, please? We added references for the biography, linked to other Wikipedia pages, added references to the research focus. That section is more extensive than usual as it's the main focus of the article on Knoblich. Thanks!

IMBA wiki (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@IMBA wiki: I think you've misunderstood what DGG said. Firstly, entire chunks of content is not sourced like

His key interest are neuronal stem cells, their asymmetrical cell division and processes of growth control. Building on his post-doctoral work, Knoblich and his colleagues characterize a complete mechanism for asymmetrical stem cell division in neural stem cells of the fruitfly Drosophila. Their results were published in a series of seminal papers, including a report in Cell in 2008. Until then, it was unknown how stem cells can separate into a self-renewing daughter cell and a specialized differentiating cell at the same time. Asymmetric cell division is based on a reaction cascade in which a cascade of molecular switches are activated or inactivated. Proteins in this cascade are either turned “on” or “off” depending on their phosphorylation state, starting with a kinase that transfers the first phosphate residue, named aurora kinase A. Aurora kinase A is often over-expressed in tumor cells, alongside other molecules that also play a role in the process of asymmetric cell division. Since stem cell mitosis is a highly conserved process, results found in fruit flies can be transferred to humans and thereby help to gain insights into general tumor neogenesis. and

The model developed by Lancaster and Knoblich is now commonly referred to as “Cerebral organoids”. It faithfully recapitulates the early steps of human brain development during the first trimester and has already been used by many other research groups around the globe. Organoid models enables researches to perform studies directly on human tissues that can be grown from any human individual. They allow scientists to efficiently transfer research findings from fruit flies and animal models to human tissues and thus to investigate heritable genetic brain diseases on human tissue. In the future, this technology will be advantageous in deciphering other brain defects such as neurodegenerative or neurological disorders and the genes involved in these processes.

This is not acceptable since unsourced content will be contested or even be deleted. Also, the problem of copyright violation isn't solved since some content is still paraphrased as mentioned by the previous reviewer. Therefore, this page is declined again. Please note that if improvements are not made, the draft may be deleted. WikiAviator (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:59:43, 23 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by IMBA wiki

• IMBA wiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Julius Brennecke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

could you please specify where secondary sources are missing? The references listed all link to verifiable information on websites with good reputation. Thanks!

IMBA wiki (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Same thing, some facts are still unsourced. WikiAviator (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, WikiAviator Thanks you have read the Brand activism draft I did. (here is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brand_activism?fbclid=IwAR0u5fzm8wvFjtD_Xb-3ZVAFNwSVxsG63w65YPRSpseUFORCN7gtJb8MKJ8 ) I see the draft is declined, for it looks similar to the Consumer activism article, but they are completely different concepts. While Consumer activism focuses on consumption and how goods or services are produced and delivered, Brand activism is a marketing and business management process by which businesses concern for the communities they serve and the world we live in. Consumer activism seeks to change the way in which goods or services are produced in order to make the production process safer, more ethical, more environmentally friendly, etc. Brand activism seeks to change society's biggest problem (such as economic injustice, education, healthcare, immigration etc. issues), using the economic power of the business. The Brand activism claims that today for the companies is not enough to offer good product and price, but they have to understand the long-term needs of the society and to solve global problems as economic problems, regulations, corruption, global warming, discrimination, education, healthcare, and etc. using the economic power they possess. Can you, please, give me advice on how to proceed? Thanx, Ivan

@Ivan gurkov: Hi, thanks for your trout. I understand the difference but the article is original research and the term is seldom used. Also, companies dealing with long-term problems of the society are counted as Corporate social responsibility, another existing article and it is part of marketing its own brand so people think that the brand is ethical, similar to consumer activism. If I were you, I would improve the two articles mentioned by inputting your significant knowledge, but of course, with supporting sources that are secondary research. Happy editing! WikiAviator (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAviator, I've been told using a trout is considered too sharp, I didn't know it and it wan not what I meant, so I'm removing it from here. Thank you again reading the article and for the advice.

@Ivan gurkov: No worries! :) WikiAviator (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE EB-lgbtq (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Dear WikiAviator,

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Rémy Bonny. I changed the wording so everything should be neutral now. I saw that other users also added a few changes. So I think it is ready for review. Please let me know your feedback.

Best, Evert--EB-lgbtq (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sizzle! The trout you used to slap another Wikipedian has been gutted, roasted over the coals, and served with tartar sauce. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that, just like the trout in this picture, your trouting of Wikipedians is overdone.

@EB-lgbtq: I'm glad that you've improved the article, however, the work is not thorough as biased phrases like "He has been exposing anti-LGBT hate during his work in Central and Eastern Europe" reflect a non-neutral point of view, as "anti-LGBT hate" is not defined clearly and is not neutral. Please consider refining these problems, for example, you could say that "He has been publicizing comments and works that he regards "hateful" and contrary to his sexual orientation and position", which would be more neutral. Also, DO NOT ask reviewers to review your article first. We review articles randomly using a script software and it wouldn't be fair to other authors if articles are picked instead of randomly generated. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok got it! Thanks a lot! --EB-lgbtq (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sibat Tomarchio

Hello, ok, this is your impression, i accept it, maybe you can help me to improve it too, being of Italian origin, am biased ;) however I have already changed something, if you want to take a look --Football Missionary (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Denis (YouTuber)

Why did you tag Denis (YouTuber) for A7 Speedy Deletion, even though the article clearly contains secondary sources discussing the subject, and therefore, in my understanding, could not possibly be an A7? Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ways to Improve Indonesia at the Southeast Asian Games

Hello WikiAviator

I understood your message and I will look into the mistakes I've done and the sources I need to search. I will undeniably look into account the results I've garnered when I made the said page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIZ*ONEI (talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A9

Hi - regarding Wolves (Emma Blackery song), if you take a look at WP:A9, you'll see that both of the two criteria have to be met - no indication of significance (tick) and no article about any of the recording artists (not tick). The sources in the article aren't enough to demonstrate notability, but I can't delete a page based on that alone, so I've declined your speedy request - please feel free to nominate at AfD however. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A2/A10

You nominated વિજયગીરી બાવા as an A2 deletion because Vijaygiri Bava exists.

• WP:A2 is for foreign language articles based on the existence of the same article on that language's wiki... gu:વિજયગીરી બાવા.
• WP:A10 is for the situation where we already have an English version on this wiki, Vijaygiri Bava.

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll change the CSD criteria. Sorry for selecting the wrong criteria since I'm not so familiar with CSD. WikiAviator (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding article about 2019 Úrvalsdeild kvenna.

You state that the sources I use are unreliable. The two sites I refer to are no mere statistical websites. They are the official webpage of the Icelandic Football Federation and the official webpage for the Icelandic State Radio. Regarding the first source (ksi.is), there are few other reliable sources on the subject (the Icelandic Women's Football league) and these are all official statistics released by the Icelandic Football Federation. Its a primary source. Maybe I could add some articles from the Icelandic media but that is all I can do to bolster this article.

Best regards. Pamfilus

4/10/2020

Thanks for your message :) The official webpage is ok for statistical purposes only (citing it once for the results) but it is not appropriate to be used as a source to establish notability since it is not a secondary source (See WP:RS). The Icelandic radio source is OK. I hope you know what I mean. Cheers, WikiAviator (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Itamar Medical

Hi there, I would like to understand better why you declined my draft since all the sources are very reliable sources and big in Israel as well as the FDA website. Please let me know which you think are promotional so I can remove them or explain them. thank you and stay safe these days! Shanisun (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shanisun: As every fact must be cited to avoid content being contested, it fails the citation criteria as whole paragraphs aren't having a single citation, like this one:

"Itamar Medical was founded in 1997 by Dr. Giora Yaron, Prof. Peretz Lavie, Prof. Daniel Goor and Mr. Martin Gerstel. It is named after Dr. Yaron's brother, Itamar Yaron, who was killed in Yom Kippur War when trying to rescue his injured soldier during the battle in which Israeli troops recaptured the Israeli outpost on Mount Hermon. Itamar was awarded with a Medal of Courage for this act."

Also, Sources from government authorities (in this case FDA) are reliable but not independent, failing the criteria. WikiAviator (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for replying at these horrible times...cannot believe how far it came and keeps going... as for the draft, I will add more sources, I think it will be in Hebrew and then resubmit. please let me know. Thank you, Shanisun (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC).

@Shanisun: Thanks. Hope that this pandemic will end soon! During this work-from-home period, keep editing and keep yourself occupied! Happy editing! (PS: Hebrew sources are okay, just resubmit when you're done and someone will review it, but it will take a while.) WikiAviator (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk page

Please stop the edit-war you started on my user talk page. You're no longer welcome on it. The point you raised should have been raised at Talk:Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir and nowhere else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to people viewing this page: Dispute resolved.

New page review review

Overall I think that your track record with reviewing articles has been quite good, but I did come across a few calls that you made that I'm not so sure about:

• For Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, I'm not seeing anything in the stub that suggests that it is notable independent of the other hymns listed at Aus der Tiefe. I note that the deWiki article for this title is about the cantata by Bach.
• Given the lack of secondary coverage and rather limited information at Gweestin River, it may be better to redirect it to Kerry Woollen Mills, although I'm honestly on the fence about this one (and haven't looked for sources myself).
• For Gustavo Adolfo Infante, the linked esWiki article does not appear to have any reliable sources (confusingly, while the correct article is linked in the interlanguage links in the left sidebar, the link in the {{expand language}} template is wrong). Do bear in mind that other Wikipedia projects often have either lower standards for inclusion, or less rigorous enforcement of their standards due to a lack of volunteers. I was able to find coverage online that suggests notability and provided one such source, but the tags that you placed didn't make it clear whether you checked beyond the existence of the Spanish language article. Per our BLP guidelines, you shouldn't be approving unsourced BLPs, even if sources are available on a linked article. Also, don't forget to tag articles about living people with WikiProject Biography and living=yes (you can use User:Evad37/rater.js, which makes the process much easier).

All in all keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to reach out to me or another experienced page reviewer if you need any help. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback :) I will improve my cuaration and prevent such stuff from happening again. WikiAviator (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: WikiAviator just escalated a rather mundane content issue (the first item in the list above) into a behavioural issue. WikiAviator's behaviour is in question, to be clear. IMHO, WikiAviator should learn how to *not* escalate plain content issues into behavioural issues before they can function properly in a new page reviewer capacity. Tx, for keeping this in mind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

In response to the hymn article, WikiAviator, and Rosguill, please don't look at the German Wikipedia. It's the English Wikipedia which covers all extant Bach cantatas (and French. and Norwegian), not German. (I am German, and it's a shame, I admit. I was driven away there.) The English Wikipedia is also much advanced when it comes to covering the hymns/chorales which appear in Bach's cantatas and oratorios. Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir is a hymn, but please note that Bach's cantata of the same name is not based on this hymn, but on the beginning of Psalm 130 in Luther's translation. It seems even more important to have the hymn article, to avoid misconceptions. - Very generally, regarding page curation, I feel that complaints come to soon. I'd give every decent-looking article - however short - some time to be developed. (One more piece of motherly advice: avoid WP:Great Dismal Swamp, a waste of time.) Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Also this rationale by Gerda regarding the content issue at hand should be on the Talk:Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir page, not on this user page where it is now swamping the point I tried to make regarding WikiAviator not making a good new page reviewer as long as they don't learn how to de-escalate something that has at its core a mundane content issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, WikiAviator, taking this to ANI was not the correct decision here, you should only take matters there if there's ongoing problems after extensive attempts to discuss the matter elsewhere. I don't think that this is grounds to immediately lose NPR permissions, provided that you deescalate and proceed to resolve this as a content dispute. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't add unnecessary tags to articles and get indignant when people remove them. {{refimprove}} is for tagging unsourced content. From the template documention: "Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Francis Schonken Rosguill: OK, I know what you mean. Will tag more carefully and use the correct tags in the future (I haven't read the template documentation, I've only read the small description on the curation tool). I apologise for all that drama and I wouldn't post content disputes on ANI again. Sorry if this has disturbed you. BTW, I just think that WP:N is not proven with only one source, @Francis Schonken so should I tag the page with that tag? Thanks. Happy editing everyone :) WikiAviator (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted. For clarity, I wouldn't have removed a {{Notability}} tag. Anyhow, what I'm still missing is that the article talk page is the right place to raise a content issue: neither a user talk page, nor, of course, ANI is. I'd like to see a bit more determination that in future you'd first go to an article talk page if there is an issue with content-related tagging: all mainspace tags are (at least in part) content-related, and if there's an issue with any of them the first place to open a discussion is in almost any case the article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Noted :) WikiAviator (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I like to see the exchange above, having made the return of kindness my Easter motto ;) - As to one source only: we should not just count, but look what kind of source. I have been asked by project opera to write an article about a historic opera singer on one German source. If the source is good, that's all it takes. I prefer an article with one good source to an article on ten that are questionable. For you, WikiAviator: I hope you will never use the tag "only one source", - that's really questioning the ability of a reader to count to one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I understand your rationale. However, the "single source" tag isn't used for what you said "counting", but to highlight that more sources are needed since heavily relying on a single source, no matter if it is RS, may result in the article to be severely biased. I hope you know what I mean :) WikiAviator (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

While I know what you mean, I - if I was a new page curator - would never use it, and you please don't use it IF that one source is reliable. In the case of the opera singer. it was the Bible on opera singers. In the case of this printed hymn, one solid source about it being printed is surely enough.

Francis, if you still read here: I would have gone to the article talk page if it was needed there but by the time I posted here it looked resolved to me. Here, I used the article only as an example. - To all: articles and perhaps even article talk pages are what our readers see, including tags and disputes, - I often begin (talking about tags, reverts, ...) on a users talk page, and only go to the article talk if it seems to matter to more than the user and me, - or if I am told to go there ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: True. I admit my fault of escalating the issue, but I utterly don't know why people on ANI ask me to use the article talk page. what Gerda Arendt said is completely true, it is an unwritten rule that we start on the user talk page if only two people are involved in the dispute, so I am appalled why so many people suddenly decide that we should put revert and tagging issues on the article talk page. However, I will totally accept this change if it is the new consensus. @Rosguill: Now seeing the new consensus, should we change the curation tool script to add review comments to the article talk page plus ping the creator and other reviewers involved? Post this up to centralized discussion? Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, nice to meet you, call me Gerda, and I need only one ping per thread ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsolicited, but hopefully useful advice: Regarding the article talk page versus user talk page, I don't think it matters much where the conversation takes place if there are only two people discussing it, but if an article's author expresses a preference, I'd suggest that you go with what they want. I'd also suggest that you should never revert someone else on their own talk page - whether they're saying to take it to the article talk page, or are just ignoring you, if they don't want to discuss it on their talk page that's their prerogative. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fundamentally disagree with "I don't think it matters much where the conversation takes place if there are only two people discussing it" – no, "number of people participating" is not the distinction. content vs. behaviour is, and a new page reviewer needs to be able to distinguish the two, even more: if a discussion has both behavioural and content aspects, it is always best to tackle the content aspect first, as long as there is a reasonable chance that this aspect gets settled independently of the behavioural aspects.

Example, nearly 15 years ago there had been an edit war (move war) on a particular article. Such "warring" is almost always something with principally a "behavioural" aspect, which more than often dwarfs the content aspect. The one tackling the undiscussed move could have gone to the other's talk page, but they didn't: a new topic was opened on the article talk page. What is the advantage of that? That future editors of the article know the thing (in this case: the article title) has been discussed before. How would they know if the only imprint left by that discussion is somewhere (or often even: no longer) in user talk page? Start looking... near to impossible to find. In the case of the given example: I could append the new discussion on the same topic to the former one which multiplied a discussion of the several aspects of that article title manifold. No need to go "through the movements" of re-inventing what had already been discussed before: the new discussion can pick up where the previous one already covered much of the ground. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, I completely disapprove of Gerda Arendt bringing the topic of that example up on a user talk page, and the false rationale that this content aspect only involves two or less people should be even more completely rejected. A few years ago I made clear to Gerda to not longer post on my user talk page for, among others, that reason. Recently she has been testing boundaries (e.g. asking me to start a talk page discussion which she perfectly could have started herself), and I think we're not far from me, again, asking her to stay away from my talk page, if I read her unacceptable "two people involved" defence above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, if discussing some substantive, permanently relevant feature of an article, such as its title, I agree that ought to be archived on the talk page for future editors; if it's just a case of a reviewer explaining why they placed a temporary maintenance tag on a page, or giving its author some suggestions for improvements, I don't see any problem with dropping that on the editor's talk page (which is what the NPP software we use does by default). I would always respect the author's preference if they indicated that they preferred to discuss it at the article, naturally. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: No, I strong disagree with that. What you're saying is a mere justification for people you hate to stay off your talk page to keep your page clean for an RfA or something (ppl will find out). Talk page is public space, it is your inbox but everyone should be allowed to edit. Most people have old enemies on Wikipedia, however, it doesn't mean you should lock them out, ask them to use the mainspace talk, and pretend not to see the discussion thread on the article talk page. I'm sure, for my case, that you wouldn't suddenly be engaged or active if I post it up on article talk, you would just ignore me and not utter a word, So that "testing boundary" thing isn't relevent. For the "edit war" justification, no, not relevant. According to WP policy, users are encouraged to resolve disputes among themselves, instead of firing out loud (I know I shouldn't have put this on ANI). So, for an edit war that only involves two parties, it would be better to talk about it on a user talk rather than the article talk. Therefore, in that specific move war, both sides should come up with a solution and post a note on the article talk page like "Note: Page movement between X and Y have been disputed". This would serve your purpose while not disrupting the normal article discussion process by other editors. Regarding your "content vs behavioural" point, true, but that's not a point of replying to Gerda, since Gerda means any disputes, which is not related to content or behavioural problems. Also, you should not revert talk page edits because doing such is destroying records. Once again, "banning" people from your talk page isn't a good idea since people will view you as anti-collaborative and hard to communicate with. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And what I'm doing is explaining to you, not the public. If you believe that I've tagged the wrong tag, you should be the one discussing on the article talk page, then pinging me. Now that I'm adding a section to your page because you reverted it without discussion, and I want your explanation. Get it? WikiAviator (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, you should not be a new page reviewer, period. You have no clue how to de-escalate, which is what Rosguill suggested you show. Content discussions don't belong on user talk pages. And if you want to de-escalate, which is something someone in a new page reviewer capacity would have to do maybe more often than they like, you should keep mixed behaviour/content issues off user talk pages whenever sound judgement would say the content issue can be resolved in article talk space and associated content-related noticeboards. I can't see you having that sound judgement yet. You throwing in some WP:ASPERSION-like comments ("ppl will find out" – I really have nothing to hide) in your post above shows you have yet much experience to acquire before being a page reviewer suits you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just my perspective but I disagree with Girth (a rare thing). While the message option when tagging only goes to the creator, NPP can also also use the message feature from underneath the review button to leave a message for both the talk page and the creator. While a note to newer editors can be helpful and appropriate, messaging experienced editors seems like useful and instead posting to both feels better. But that's not what happened here. This was an editing dispute - new page reviewers have no special permission or authority beyond the one button "Mark as reviewed" so commenting about a tag being undone does, in my opinion, belong on the talk page just as other editing disagreements do. As for Wiki's suitability to be a NPP, I agree that even keel and being able to de-esclate is an important and frequently necessary skill. Suggesting bad faith motives for why Francis removed the discussion from their talk page - a removal permitted under our policies and guidelines - is not de-escalating. However, I have appreciated that they've been willing to reflect and learn from this experience. So I personally would not support removal at this time, especially as Rosguill just re-evaluated their record. However I know I will be watching them closely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I am, at best, the Aristotle to Barkeep49's Plato when it comes to NPP - or, more likely, Daniel to his Mr Miyagi. I'm happy to align with his judgement on the appropriate place for discussions to take place, so apologies to Francis Schonken if you feel I've not considered your concerns here adequately. I think we can all agree though that, wherever a reviewer first approaches an author, the author's preference on where the discussion ought to proceed should be respected. I hope we can draw a line under this now, and that WikiAviator will take this on board as friendly feedback. Cheers all GirthSummit _(blether) 22:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Re. "... leave a message for both the talk page and the creator ..." – I don't understand this feature very well (not being familiar with the interface): shouldn't that be "either ... or ..."? Posting about the same topic in two different places at the same time seems like inviting to concurrent discussions about the same topic in two different places (which is generally discouraged, and a bad practice anyhow). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I think the default setting (to author only) is sufficient, since not all users have a preference of disliking the usage of user talk pages. Article talk pages are often neglected, but a clear message on the talk page of the creator can truly alert them. Also, expereinced editors who have access to the page curation script can see an envelope sign on the toolbar if a reviewer has left a msg on the user talk page of the creator or another reviewer, so they could carry on the discussion on the user talk page by clicking the link if needed. However, if the problem is large and more editors involved is better (i.e. those doing backlog clearing), then tagging would be more appropriate, which raises more attention than a talk page conversation, but tagging is usually accopanied with talkp age threads if the problem is too big and concrete resturcturing is needed. Thereofre, there are no hard rules, but just keep one conversation in one place, sometimes it's better on user talk, while sometimes it's better to tag, or even talk page discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, @Girth Summit: Thanks for your feedback. @Francis Schonken:, I have to make it clear that I'm not accusing you of anything. Calm down. People who have read the whole message should know this is not my core message. I'm just asking you not to do so in case you're trying to do this (although permitted, it is not recommended unless you feel it is offensive or has personal attacks. There are numerous essays (not policies) suggesting why you shouldn't polish your talk page). This is not escalation, this is just a response towards your accusation of Gerda of crossing the boundary. Sure, I can agree to disagree, but if I see other editors being accused of things that are false, then sorry I can't stay in silence and let that person get unfair treatment. Never. If you're the one who wants de-escalation, you should not be the one stirring up the arguement again and blaming others for responding. About the sound arguement thing, content disputes should be put on the article talk page, but what I'm mainly concerned is your revert, so that's why I'm putting it on your talk page. As suggested by the two admins, I don't have any power over anyone else when solving disputes, so please do not challenge my reviewer rights as you are supposed to treat me as a normal editor. Period. (To all editors: Reading the whole message in this thread before responding is highly appreciated) WikiAviator (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Accidentally came across this – do you see anything likely to raise an eyebrow there? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ummmm... The article is not worth praising... at all. Seems like it belongs to Wiktionary. No sources, definition only and poorly written. However, I don't know why the reviewer said per Randy, who is the author and I don't see why he reverted this, personal preference I think. WikiAviator (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: May I know why are you posting this here? To test me or what? For editing advice please seek help directly from admin or raise queries at the WP:Help desk or contact the editors involved. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Gary Gill

You guys are full of shit at Wiki. Look up John K Frost on your Wiki and tell me how mine is different. LOL Anthony.CT.ASCP (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Frost Anthony.CT.ASCP (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to all viewers and editiors

Note: This user is currently extremely stressed due to real-life workloads, and they may be away for extended periods due to the lack of time, and should be back by mid-July. They may not be swiftly replying to queries since they may not check their talk page as often. For urgent matters, please email this user to get their attention as soon as possible. Thank you. WikiAviator (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Operation Michael

Hi:

This submission you rejected as blank is, in fact a template, a campaign box. Look to the right and you should see the campaign box, or edit the draft and you can see the text.

Best,

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, but please rename it to Template:Operation Michael and publish it immediately. Templates are not reviewed by AfC, only articles are accepted. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

""It's not mine, I was just letting you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK :) WikiAviator (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello WikiAviator,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Nosferatu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1292simon has "Rejected" my last submitted draft meaning I cannot do anything. I have edited the page to be as subjective and without any personal slant. I really feel the criteria being used for this draft is way more draconian than the large majority of Wikipedia pages out there.

As the above user does not seem to want to help further I am asking you as a previous reviewer to reconsider this page and/or advise how I can get it resubmitted?

Vladjanicek66 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your enquiry. As mentioned by previous reviewers, problems that are listed are not properly addressed.

1. The article does not meet the WP:Notability guidelines.
2. Some parts of the article are unsourced. Note that according to Wikipedia policy, each fact must be verified by a WP:reliable source.
3. The article (especially the history section) is written in a tone that looks like an official website, and it does not comply with the WP:NPOV policy.
4. As mentioned, these problems are not properly addressed and the author shows no intent to make improvements or ask for advice on how to improve in earlier stages, but instead blames fellow editors for rejecting one’s draft and not helping, although concise advice have been repeatedly given.
5. As such, a rejection of the draft is a fair decision to ensure public resources are not wasted to reviewing articles that have been repeatedly resubmitted with minimal efforts to address problems and no concrete improvements.

Therefore, the reviewers are indeed trying to help, but the advice is simply ignored. Regarding whether you can do anything with your article, you are welcome to work on the rejected draft, and after you have addressed all the problems, please approach me first for me to see if it is okay before you resubmit. Note that such drafts will be reviewed with extra scrutiny and second opinion will be consulted. About your claim that AFC rules are too stringent, it is true that some articles have lower quality, but they are kept due to their notability and neutrality, and they of course need improvements. However for the case of your draft, NPOV violations and notability issues are the core problems, which may result in it being deleted should it be published. Here in AFC, it is our mission to ensure all articles published from AFC meet quality guidelines, and that if they were to be deleted, their AFD wouldn’t pass. Therefore, AFC is not draconian. I hope that this answers your queries. Should you have more questions, feel free to contact me at any time here, though I may not be able to reply quickly. Don’t hesitate to ask other experience editors at WP:Teahouse or at IRC, they are willing to help you! Happy editing! Yours, WikiAviator WikiAviator (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks WikiAviator, your response explains it perfectly. Since I was unaware that the author was WP:FORUMSHOPPING this around various Talk pages and Noticeboards, I recently changed the decision from Reject to Decline as an act of good faith. I apologise if this undermined any of your advice here, and feel free to put it back to Reject if you feel this is more appropriate. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

1292simon Well, I do not think it is appropriate to see "forum shopping", something that is contrary to Wikipedia principles as something of good faith. It is okay for them to ask for advice, but such disruption and repeated resubmission should not be tolerated. Therefore, I would still like to uphold your previous decision of rejecting the draft to prevent this vicious cycle of submit, decline, submit, decline and to ensure everything is okay before it is resubmitted. However, in view of respecting your decision, I would except this but I will reject it or even start the deletion process if they resubmit the draft with no improvements. Hope you would understand :-) Cheers, WikiAviator (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with the approach you suggest. Just to clarify, what I meant to say is that changing the decision from Reject to Decline is not something that I would have done if I had realised that the author was forum shopping for a more lenient decision. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification :-) WikiAviator (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hellp

Hi Tnx for your message I finished writing a page after learning how to do it well. Can you be nice and explain to me why it stayed in the Draft version? Thanks for your response All the best Mumi

You have not submitted it for review, in fact you removed the submit button that I added for you! Theroadislong (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mumi ob: Hi there, please the draft mentioned for me to follow up the case and provide further support, thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, i submited it for review, can you please take alook?

@Mumi ob: Unfortunately I can’t help you review the article since no article could be fast tracked in our randomised process and an uninvolved reviewer shall be reviewing the draft for neutrality and second opinion. However, I could still take a look and give you some comments. Could you provide the name of the draft? Thank you. Also, please sign off you threads with four tidles. WikiAviator (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Synergis concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Synergis, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Assistance with article

Hi WikiAviator, a few weeks ago I submitted changes to a draft article that you once declined, so I thought I might try to reach out to you for assistance if you may have a moment. The article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Black_Heart_Saints

The band is currently on the Billboard Charts (evidence is here: http://charts.bdsradio.com/bdsradiocharts/charts.aspx?formatid=54) and also was one of the few bands to perform at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. These facts, among others, should prove the subject to be worthy of inclusion as an article, I believe from reviewing the guidelines for notability. I just wanted to see if you may have any feedback. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athousanddaysbefore (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately being on the charts does not meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia since it does not indicate any significance or coverage. However, after re-evaluation of sources, the in-depth coverage in the article of Austin Chronic and other sources demonstrates this. Therefore, I think it would be okay to include this in Wikipedia. I will add a comment to the article about this and please do submit it as soon as possible. Unfortunately I will be unable to review the article because second opinion is needed and they should be reviewed randomly for the sake of fairness. Thanks :-) WikiAviator (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC) WikiAviator (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Synergis

Hello, WikiAviator. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Synergis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Eternal Shadow Talk 02:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Request on 08:06:26, 25 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by VfBenny89

• VfBenny89 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Erik Stoffelshaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello WikiAviator, you mentioned that on my draft of Erik Stoffelshaus there are reliable sources missing. I´m a little confused about it, because for every aspect of his career I thought I had a reliable source as each of them was eiter a newspaper article or a statement of the organisation he worked for. So, do I just need more sources? Best regards

VfBenny89 (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@VfBenny89: Hi, thanks for your message. Unfortunately according to the deletion log, your draft has been deleted recently due to inactactivity (Deletion Criteria G13), therefore I am unable to access it and provide help. To continue to work on the draft or to seek further assistance, please request for undeletion (Speedy Deletion Criteria G13) to restore your draft (there is a huge likelihood of them approving the restoration) and notify me again. I am more than happy to help out. Cheers, WikiAviator (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

OK now I see the restored article. Seen as there is sufficient coverage, the article may be accepted. Please resubmit the article for review. WikiAviator (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Yugo Kochi

Hi,

You have declined the AfC submission of Draft:Yugo Kochi on the ground “nn -Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines”. I think this was a mistake (or at least not specific enough); the article clearly shows the notability. I have therefore moved the draft to mainspace. —- Taku (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Leadership Opinion Polling for the 2017 General Election

Hi,

I am just wondering if you can tell me why the following post was deleted and what I would need to do to get it fit for resumission

Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

There is similar pages for 2015, 2019 and for the next general election so it would be good if we can include a page for 2017. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I know that there are such pages for other elections. However, there are no references in the page and the data is overly-detailed. The data should be included in the main page of the election in a more concise manner like the US General Election predictions, and I see no need for such data for every candidate for every time point because Wikipedia is not a data depository. Thanks :) WikiAviator (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello WikiAviator,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Achhelal Sonkar

Hello and hi. I saw you declined Draft:Achhelal Sonkar. The person is an elected MLA hence passing WP:NPOL by virtue. Please give a clarification regarding your decline. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I understand that under NPOL he would have passed. However, under WP:N he wouldn't since there is no notability established with his sources (which are just poll records). Next time I will be more aware of the NPOL requirements :) WikiAviator ^talk 11:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No issues colleague. But please dont accept or reject a draft which has been already marked as under review by another reviewer. Because you declined two drafts which I was about to accept:) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Sorry! WikiAviator ^talk 04:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I see you have declined the draft I created at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chao_Guo

I am new at this so please bear with me. However, I followed the guidelines here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

Based on these guidelines Chao Guo would seem to clearly qualify, if not for his publication and citation record then at least for meeting the 'editor' criterion which states that "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area."

Can you please help me understand the decline and what I can do to fix this?

Thanks.

Gdsaxton (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC).

First and foremost, not every academic is automatically presumed notable. In order to qualify, the academic has to meet one of the following:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

I understand "significant impact is subjective", but based on above, it is clear that as an associate professor, he does not meet the guidelines. As for the significant achievements part, one award or two cannot establish that, especially if that award is not one that is notable or from a notable organization. As for editorial notability, yes, the journal is indeed notable, so I will give the article a pass, sorry for overlooking it. Since, you only gave me a hyperlink of the journal, but not the Wikipedia article internal link, I just thought it is a shady, promotional one and I didn't check thoroughly. I apologise once again. I will resubmit and accept the article for you. WikiAviator ^talk 09:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chao Guo has been accepted

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiAviator ^talk 09:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jordan Nash

I see that you tried to accept Draft:Jordan Nash, and were blocked because there is already a redirect from his name to the film in which he starred. I see that you then accepted the draft by adding a disambiguator. Please do not do that. If there is a redirect, accepting the draft with a disambiguator causes confusion. The process of accepting a draft when there is a redirect because a previous article was cut down is complicated. If you don't know how to do that, or can't do that, please ask for help instead, at Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I will sk for help next time (I don't know how to do this). Thanks and happy editing :) WikiAviator ^talk 05:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Your reviewing

Hi. I know you are trying to help but I'm very doubtful about some of the articles you have accepted. I have already had to delete some and move others back to draft space. I am not sure you have enough experience to tell what is acceptable and what isn't. Deb (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have been a reviewer around a year ago, but I stopped for a while and restarted lately. Yes, I have noticed that I have been less stringent in terms of accepting articles after some people said I was too stringent. I will try to be as neutral as possible but tbh the guidelines can be quite subjective (or else why would AfD discussions be such heated?), and I will review the sources and notability of the drafts more carefully. Thanks :) WikiAviator ^talk 07:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. My motto is - "If in doubt, leave it for someone more experienced to deal with." Deb (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello WikiAviator:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1300 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Request on 10:55:57, 14 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Smartiperson

• Smartiperson (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tunnelmental (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WIKIAVIATOR'S REPLIES WILL BE IN BLOCK, BOLD, ITALICS SINCE THIS WOULD ALLOW ME TO REPLY JUST BELOW THE TEXT YOU HAVE WRITTEN WITHOUT SCROLLING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN YOUR TEXT AND THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. IT WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR ME TO REPLY JUST BELOW THE TEXT I WANT TO REFER TO. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. I DON'T MEAN TO BE RUDE FOR CAPSLOCKING EVERYTHING.

Many thanks for your replies, I appreciate the sense of Block Captials to make your comments stand out

--Smartiperson (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I saw you declined Draft:Tunnelmental. The reason you gave was "Only 1 RS: the BBC one."

Firstly, it would be helpful to understand how many Reliable Sources would be considered 'enough' for an article to be published. Given that there is indeed at least 1 RS, that implies that at least some of the article can be published. It is challenging to locate RS given the pre-internet age of some of history, but in the meantime, the article could be slimmed down with the removal of unverified text. However, the preference would be to leave much of this content in place, since the detail is factual, just lacking RS. Most articles on Wikipedia have a mixture of cited information and supplemental uncited text, and so there can be some leeway as to including such supplementary words as long it is reasonable and can be presumed accurate, perhaps with added comments saying "citation required"

THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION. INDEED, THERE IS NO FIXED AMOUNT OF RELIABLE SOURCES REQUIRED FOR AN ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISHED. HOWEVER, JUST HAVING ONE SOURCE (OR SOURCES FROM THE SAME PRESS) WILL NOT BE ENOUGH. I APOLOGISE FOR OVERLOOKING SOME SOURCES SINCE SOME OF THEM WERE OVERSHADOWED BY THE GREAT NUMBER OF FACEBOOK AND YOUTUBE SOURCES THAT ARE IRRELAVENT. REGARDING WHETHER UNVERIFIED TEXT CAN OR SHOULD BE INCLUDED, THE ANSWER IS A BIG FAT 'NO'. THE ESSENCE OF WIKIPEDIA IS THAT WE DO NOT CREATE CONTENT, WE CITE CONTENT. THIS IS HOW WE MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA WITHOUT PEER REVIEW. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A CONSENSUS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT SOURCES NEED NOT BE ACCURATE (OF COURSE THIS HAS CAUSED PROBLEMS AND HAS DRAWN CRITICISM BY BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC BUT IT IS THE LESSER EVIL), BUT BE RELIABLE, SINCE THE DEFINITION OF "ACCURATE" IS ARBITRARY. AS SUCH, ANY CONTENT INCLUDED WILL NOT BE JUDGED BY ACCURACY, BUT SOLELY BY VERIFIABILITY. NOW, I DON'T QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF YOUR CONTENT, BUT IF NO SOURCE CAN BE PROVIDED, INCLUSION WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE SINCE SUCH CONTENT MAY BE CONSIDERED ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND MAY RISK DELETION. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOURCES PREDATING THE INTERNET WOULD BE NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND, I HEAR YOU, BUT YOU REALLY HAVE TO FIND A SOURCE TO BACK EACH AND EVERY FACT UP. SPEAKING OF WHETHER WE SHOULD KEEP THIS CONTENT, I WOULD SUGGEST REMOVING EVERYTHING THAT IS UNVERIFIABLE. ADDING A "CITATION NEEDED" LABEL DOESN'T HELP IF NO SOURCES CAN BE FOUND ANYWAY, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT PEOPLE PATROLLING, WHO MAY NOT HAVE AN EXPERTISE OR INTEREST IN MUSIC, WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND ANY. ADDING SUCH LABELS WILL JUST BE ADDING A BURDEN TO THE BACKLOG WITHOUT BENEFIT. MOREOVER, SINCE THIS ARTICLE IS NOT YET PUBLISHED, WE HAVE TO ENSURE EVERYTHING IS FINE BEFORE IT SEES THE LIGHT OF THE DAY, TAGS ARE JUST REMEDIAL MEASURES. THEREFORE I AM SORRY THAT THE ELABORATION YOU HAVE INCLUDED CANNOT BE PRESUMED AS FACTUAL, AND AS SUCH, CANNOT BE INCLUDED. I WILL GO THROUGH THE SOURCES AT MY EARLIEST CONVENIENCE AND WILL KEEP YOU UPDATED WHEN THERE ARE ANY CHANGES. THANKS :) WikiAviator ^talk 09:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Since you pointed out the apparent lack of RS, I have endeavoured to supplement, highlight move and remove citations in order to present the information in an enhanced way. As you have already noted, the minor stuff had the effect of masking the key points. In particular, I have removed the irrelevant facebook links which were not helping to verify the article itself. Thank you for your explanation of the difference between 'factual' and verifiable. I believe now that the remaining content is appropriately cited.

--Smartiperson (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Secondly, your review seems to have overlooked a couple of RS. These are:

1^ Eynon, Michelle. "Tunnelmental Defeat the Inefficiency of Crashing". digital-collections.csun.edu. Daily Sundial. Retrieved 30 November 2020.

This links to a pdf copy of the California State University published newspaper "Daily Sundial" dated Thursday, November 19, 1992. You have to scroll down to Page 9. Here you then find an important article which includes words and a photo relating to the original 3 members of the band, and their music EP release.

THIS ONE IS GOOD TO GO, SORRY FOR OVERLOOKING IT.

Thank you for confirming the validity of this citation. Given all the changes now made, I will resubmit this Draft article so the updated form can be given fresh consideration.

--Smartiperson (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Also:

12^ Ali, Lorraine. "In Search of the Hottest Music in Town : L.A.'s storied rock clubs fizzled in the pay-to-play '80s, but today's revitalized scene is thriving on a healthy dose of underground spirit". latimes.com. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 30 November 2020.

The calls up an article published in the Los Angles Times newspaper dated march 13, 1994. Within this, a review of "The Auditorium" mentions the group and provides a quote from one of the original members.

Regarding the accepted RS from the BBC, that there are a total of 4 separate articles published on different dates, so these are multiple citations.

17^ Morris, Stephen. "Stephen Morris reviews Tunnelmental Experimental Assembly". BBC Gloucestershire. Retrieved 29 November 2020. [16th June 2010]

21^ "Cheltenham jockey returns to play at Wychwood Festival". bbc.co.uk. BBC Gloucestershire. Retrieved 30 November 2020. [4th June 2010]

26^ Morris, Stephen. "Stephen Morris on Tunnelmental Experimental Assembly". bbc.co.uk. BBC Gloucestershire. Retrieved 30 November 2020. [18th March 2011]

28^ Morris, Stephen. "Tunnelmental Experimental Assembly review". bbc.co.uk. BBC Gloucestershire. Retrieved 1 December 2020. [14th October 2011]

Additional references to the mentioned appearances at Wychwood Festival (2010) and also Alchemy Festival (2013) are also included, and have been updated since the site has been revised:

19^ "Wychwood Music Festival 2010: TunnelMental Experimental Assembly". efestivals.co.uk. efestivals. Retrieved 30 November 2020.

29^ "Alchemy Festival 2013". efestivals.co.uk. Retrieved 29 November 2020.

Within this site are the Performer's page, which provides a photo of the band.

There are a number of other citations used which have merit.

For instance:

34^ "T.E.A Time as Tunnelmental Experimental Assembly talks to WSR". wickedspinsradio.org. Retrieved 30 November 2020.

This provides an interview with the band, published by Wicked Spin Radio

3^ "Watch this! Tunnelmental new single 'a slice of perfect punktronica'". louderthanwar.com. Louder Than War. Retrieved 2 December 2020.

This provides a review of their music and describes it's genre, published by Louder Than War. [September 7, 2016]

37 ^ "SPILL CANADIAN MUSIC PREMIERE: TUNNELMENTAL – "AWAKE ME"". spillmagazine.com. Spill Magazine. Retrieved 30 November 2020.

This provides another article on the band's music, published by Spill Magazine.

41 ^ Franklin, Dave. "Pop by any other name from tunnelmental experimental assembly". theswindonian.co.uk. Retrieved 29 November 2020.

This provides a review of a music release and the band, published by The Swindonian [18th April 2019]

There are a number of cross-references with existing Wikipedia pages, most notably with Erika Amato and Velvet Chain, and cites a bio of a key member of both groups:

7^ "Jeff Stacy bio". velvetchain.com. Retrieved 30 November 2020.

Furthermore, there are many sources included relating to various music sites such as Bandcamp and discogs; these could be supplemented with an update to include other sites such as Apple iTunes, Deezer, Spotify etc. Whereas these might not classify as 'Citation', they do provide access to the relevant music released output of the band.

Finally, there are several references included relating to relevant facebook pages. Whereas these may not qualify as RS, they do at least provide supplementary reference information on the people referred to with the descriptive text, thereby providing a reference background.

In summary, I would ask that you look again at the suitably of article for publishing, and hopefully provide additional guidance as to what does and doesn't classify as RS, also explaining "how much more" is needed to qualify for publishing.

--Smartiperson (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Since the initial review, a few minor amendments have been made to the AFC: Draft:Tunnelmental

This citation from Michelle Eynon has been moved to the introductory section, since it provides a reference regarding the founding members of the band, the movement to LA and the related music EP. This is a key RS appearing in the California State University published newspaper "Daily Sundial" dated Thursday, November 19, 1992.

1^ Eynon, Michelle. "Tunnelmental Defeat the Inefficiency of Crashing". digital-collections.csun.edu. Daily Sundial. Retrieved 16 May 2021.

The citations relating to appearances at eFestivals have been updated to link back to the line-ups of performers highlighting attendance at these festivals by the band. These have been supplemented with an additional citation which links to the Performer's page. Although no forthcoming appearances are listed, there is at least a photo taken of a previous performance.

19^ "Wychwood Music Festival 2010 line-up and rumours". efestivals.co.uk. efestivals. Retrieved 16 May 2021

25^ "TunnelMental Experimental Assembly (performer's page)". efestivals.co.uk. Retrieved 16 May 2021.

29^ "Alchemy Festival 2013". efestivals.co.uk. Retrieved 16 May 2021.

This additional comment has been added to the Discography Section, highlighting that current music from the band is accessible on iTunes and Spotify and historical physical format music is listed on the ebay auction site. These locations have been identified in additional citations.

Much of Tunnelmental's more recent music can be found on various download and streaming sites such as Apple's iTunes [68] and Spotify [69] whereas earlier material may be located on physical media sold through auction sites such as eBay [70].

73^ "itunes artist tunnelmental". music.apple.com. Retrieved 16 May 2021.

74^ "Tunnelmental Songs, Albums and Playlists Spotify". spotify.com. Retrieved 16 May 2021.

75^ "TUNNELMEN - DEFEAT THE INEFFICIENCY OF CRASHING". ebay.com. Retrieved 16 May 2021.

--Smartiperson (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved this citation to introduction to reference type of music and the relaunch, and shortened the description. Also added additional citation copy to provide reference to Joy Mitchell's contribution.

2^ Carr, Nigel. "Nigel R Mitchell – Tunnelmental – Interview". Louderthanwar.com. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

42^ adminmimicnewscom. "Nigel R Mitchell – Tunnelmental – Interview". mimicnews.com. Retrieved 19 May 2021. 

Added improved citation for music single Sting

35^ Franklin, Dave. "Sting – tunnelmental experimental assembly (reviewed by Dave Franklin)". dancing-about-architecture.com. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

Added additional background history citation

5^ "Flipside magazine interview of tunnelmental from 1996". tunnelmental.com. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

Moved Citation from John Robb to the introduction as this provides background for the relaunched band.

3^ Robb, John. "Watch this! Tunnelmental new single 'a slice of perfect punktronica'". louderthanwar.com. Louder Than War. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

Added additional citation for Advertising Junky, due to the original one being moved to the introduction.

36^ "Advertising Junky (It's a Trap)". amazon.com. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

Added Citation to involvement by Geordie Walker

10^ "Music Connection, The West Coast Music Trade Magazine". tunnelmental.com. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

Added citation to review in The Independent newspaper of the Wychwood Festival

20^ Perrone, Pierre. "First Night, Wychwood Festival, CHELTENHAM, The Independent newspaper". tunnelmental.com. Retrieved 19 May 2021.

--Smartiperson (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been quite busy lately, give me some time and I will reply to your message ASAP. Cheers, WikiAviator ^talk 04:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)