|
|
Draft submission declined
Hi Gustfriend, I wrote a new article about Rob Rokicki and you declined it for violating copyright rules. I don't believe it violates copywrite since I wrote it myself. Can you take a look at it again?
Thanks! Sunshine-moonshine-0 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
26-day review?
You may have left a draft marked as under reviewed for 26 days by accident. I have unmarked the draft to put in back into the queue. – robertsky (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Tara Clark
Please do not take my nomination of this article whose earlier draft you accepted as a criticism of your acceptance. We all have different opinions, and the community's opinions trump yours or mine.
As an AFC reviewer myself I choose to remain neutral at AfD discussions where I have accepted the draft. While I commend that route to you it is my personal preference to act in that manner, you may have different views. If wish to express an opinion please do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Gusfriend. Just seconding @Timtrent's note here. Lots of gray areas in AfC and my personal opinion is this one could have gone either way, although I had some notability concerns. You did nothing wrong in accepting it and we'll see how it shakes out. Ping me if you need anything. Star Mississippi 20:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your messages. I agree with the policy of staying away from the AfD discussion in the same way that I generally don't conduct the review of AfCs that I have previously rejected. I will admit that it was a marginal approve and I have no trouble with the AfD being started for it. Gusfriend (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- If pressed, I tag an AfD comment as Neutral and explain that I remain neutral on AFC acceptances of mine that go on to AfD. I sometimes explain it was a marginal decision (if it was) and that the community is a better judge than one reviewer.
- I agree with not performing a second AFC review unless the circumstance are ones I view as special in some manner 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Neontenic
I wonder if you remember that this is under review still? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. A mix of ReFill being overloaded and being a little off my game. Now fixed. Gusfriend (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Draft:CBi Bank
Hello Gusfriend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:CBi Bank, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I do not think the draft is blatantly promotional. It merely states when the bank was founded. Yes, this will not be going to the mainspace any time soon, but G11 should be reserved for painfully obvious cases. . Thank you. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Re-submission
Since I was not the original author or a major contributor of Draft:Exaly, I did not want to change the overall structure. I changed the two references to Exaly official website by available credible sources. However, just for my reference, as I checked similar pages I found it is a common practice in Wikipedia to reference the official website on some instances. Isn't it? I can give you tons of examples. MojoDiJi (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- In an ideal situation everything that you want to include in the Wikipedia article has been mentioned in a newspaper article, tv news report, scientific paper, etc. For example if you wanted to write about the White House dog then there are enough articles without needing to rely on the White House web site. At the other end of the scale there is an article which only uses a company web site as a reference which will be removed fairly quickly. Then there are the cases in between where you have to look and see what you (i.e. the community) is willing to accept. In the case of Exaly my judgement was that it was just a little too close to the relying on their web site end of things. Anyway, if you resubmit it then someone will re-assess it for you. Gusfriend (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Resubmission of Draft:Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal
Hi, could you please reevaluate the draft? I believe it is now ready for mainspace.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Submission of Draft:Alexander Ostroumov declined on 1 June 2022
Hi Gusfriend, Thank you for your tips. I've cleaned up most of the "peacock terms" in the text. There are still some "peacock terms" but they belong to the references. The problem is that very little has been written about Ostroumov. Because of the catastrophic historical events, everything was destroyed and his professional activity remained completely unknown. The only two books (see the references!) that also report on Ostroumov are already written in a laudative tone. It's hard for me to end this by quoting from these sole sources. In doing so, I would falsify the intention of the authors. It would be a pity if the public could not find out about Ostroumov. I hope that my changes to the text will make the submission possible. If not yet, please give me further tips to achieve this. Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Rascanu (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have gone back to the page and made the first bits a little more neutral. I will submit it for someone else to approve later on after some more edits. Gusfriend (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Gusfriend, I hope everything goes well. Dan Rascanu (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for withdrawing your nomination of Easley High School for deletion
Hi GusFriend! Thanks for withdrawing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easley High School. I think it turns out to be quite notable; I keep finding more and more information. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, where you can apply for access to a lot of source, the one I recommend most is access to newspapers.com. Jacona (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- here's a more direct link to free stuff at the library Jacona (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information. It is the first AfD I have had where there was such a large collection of information like that although I had been aware of Trove in the past. Gusfriend (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you so much for approving my article Murder of Joanne Witt. What an honor to have my first article not only approved, but done so quickly and then rated C Class! I can't thank you enough! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article references 16 different articles from a mix of new providers with good use of in-line citations. The article goes into a good level of detail, the lead provides a good summary and there are no big WP:MOS issues. All in all that is exactly what we want in an article.
- The only improvements that I can think of would be to add Template:Infobox event (with a photo) and if there are any paragraphs which lack in line citations to add them in. Gusfriend (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been looking for a photo, but the only ones come from the news stories and I don't know how to go about getting clearance to use one of those. I've looked at the process for getting photos on Wikimedia Commons and it seems like a PITA. If you're good at that sort of thing, please feel free to pull something from one of my sources and use it. That infobox looks perfect. Thanks for finding one that fits. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Do NOT accept articles without sources
What you did at List of bays of France is against the AFC rules saying that articles may only be accepted if they are cited to reliable sources (lists are no exception). If you've done that more than once, permissions should be revoked. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies. I have seen a number of list pages without and references and was mistaken as to consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. See WP:LISTVERIFY for current consensus on list sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft Submission Declined
Hi Gusfriend,
I noticed you declined my recent draft of The Phillips Academy Poll. As someone new to Wikipedia, I'm a bit confused about how recency threatens the accuracy of the article. In some other pages I've updated, the references to election results are very recent because they must. Regarding notability, I've provided citations from NHPR, which is an NPR affiliate. FiveThirtyEight is also a subsidiary of ABC News, and coverage on their website indicates notability and reliability, especially in the polling world.
Please keep me updated, and I hope to continue learning about Wikipedia's policies.
Vergilreader (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Vergilreader
- There is an essay at Wikipedia:There is no deadline which talks about how there is no deadline for Wikipedia and there is nothing wrong with leaving things to mature a little. This can be as simple as allowing more information to come to light or time to allow more in depth reporting or to allow more real life activities to occur. For example, an article about a new group providing polling information ahead of anyone declaring their intention to run will be better after the primaries and better again after the election. You should feel free to resubmit at any time and I suspect that it would likely be approved at this point.
- One word of warning though, some editors may be comment on the difference between the poll findings being published and the poll itself being discussed. Gusfriend (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Unreferenced
Hello Gusfriend -- Just a quick note to say don't add the unreferenced tag to an article unless it has no sources at all, including in the form of external links. There are a lot of referencing templates that might apply, such as More footnotes needed (no inline references); see Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Request on 22:02:44, 7 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Account10swg39
- Account10swg39 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Areej Sabbagh-Khoury ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thank you so much for reviewing the article! As recommended, I have significantly cut the number of publications. I have made updates throughout as well to better reflect notability. The "Notability (academics)" guidelines states that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable": "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Sabbagh-Khoury has been awarded the H.G. Guggenheim's Distinguished Scholars Grant, the Fulbright award, the Israeli Council for Higher Education's Maof Scholarship, and an Israel Science Foundation postdoctoral award, among others. The article also demonstrates notability. For instance, Footnote 11 is a Washington Post article that quotes from Sabbagh-Khoury. Footnote 15 is a Hebrew article from the top Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which discusses in-depth Sabbagh-Khoury's research. Footnote 17, an academic article by the historian Gabriel Piterberg, discusses Sabbagh-Khoury's novel research agenda in-depth. Other footnotes link to talks Sabbagh-Khoury has been invited to give on her speciality.
I hope these suffice. Thank you!
Account10swg39 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those changes have definitely improved the page. Rather than being the one to assess it now I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to review it as they can some to it with fresh eyes. Gusfriend (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Nick Mason also toured as the drummer for the band Tuff
At least in 2015 2601:40E:8100:9220:54D2:3741:AE0D:C6D8 (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
FB MSBS Grot
I'm not sure that supporting the edit warring done by IP 91.237.86.201 is a good idea, you filled in references to the articles which are in Polish, and I'm not quite sure you are aware of the fact that at this point the IP is breaking the 3RR rule in 24 hours. The IP keep doing this despite not gaining any consensus. Also, since the sources are in Polish, I'm not sure you are aware of the fact that what the IP has done was to create a text based on WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:Original research. You are encouraging bad behavior by going in and filling in the citation details, and blindly confirming sources you may not be able to read or understand they are not in English. --E-960 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you referring to me running the tool WP:REFILL? I am not sure that I would categorise that as doing anything other than fixing bare references and combining references. Gusfriend (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why are we running such tools when an editor is engaged in an edit war and the text they inserted is under scrutiny, and also an ANI case has been filed? It would have been more appropriate if you reverted those edits pending all those other discussions. --E-960 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Btw, how to you suggest to run the RfC with the disputed text already in there I suppose, putting the cart before the horse I guess. --E-960 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- For a RfC if the text is already there then you would do something like:
- {{rfc|sci}}
- I propose replacing the section
- This bit that I copied from the page
- with the following text
- How I would like it to be said
- as I believe that that the existing text presents an overly negative perspective of reality. Gusfriend (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The better the text that you want it replaced by and the better the explanation of why you don't like the current version then the more likely you are to get consensus.Gusfriend (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also check out Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Article_topics for some current examples. Gusfriend (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The better the text that you want it replaced by and the better the explanation of why you don't like the current version then the more likely you are to get consensus.Gusfriend (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
No, first off... the disputed content should not be in the article, there are clear rules on this, and I was being facetious when I asked about it, note Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also, what is the RfC going to be about in the first place, the synthesis and original research? The editor who keeps pushing this questionable text has up to this point misrepresented a number of sources, so what will this RfC accomplish other than provide a chance to WP:FORUMSHOP. The RfC is not an idea option. --E-960 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like to assume good faith which is how I answered your question. Secondly, sometimes WP:BRD is not getting anywhere (including sometimes when people have a different view about who is being bold or if it devolves into an edit war). In this case it appears that getting consensus is proving problematic which is exactly where RfC can prove useful. Gusfriend (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BRD works exactly how it should, questionable editions are held back, and sometimes such edits should not be included at all. Also, I see that you started the RfC, and it's very apparent that you are not familiar with the issue, not only you summarized the article poorly, also since you are not a Polish speaker you have no access to more information on this issue. Finally, (and this is my main point) if there are barely any RELIABLE reference sources discussing this issue in the English language, why are you trying to add this information on English Wikipedia? So, pls consider WP:ONUS a concept highlighted on the articles talk page by an administrator El_C. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Btw, you are also probably not aware or at least don't take into full account the public allegations made against Onet.pl who is owned by a German company that it purposely ran a hit piece about the rifle because it was becoming a competitor to the HK and other German manufacturers. You opened a RfC based on one English language reference source and you did not even summarize it properly. Also, did you notice the unusual editing patter of the IP and the three registered users Rzęsor was dormant since 2012 and only recently restarted editing in 2022. As I mentioned in the ANI these may be sock puppets, I'm not sure of that, however it maybe a legitimate concern of mine. I suspect what's going to happen is after this RfC they will still push to get their questionable POV into the article, and the "compromise" RfC will actually yield no compromise at all. --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Please remove Alex Potanin (Computer Scientist) page?
Hello,
If general chair for major CS conference does not count the same as editor in chief for a major journal (given that CS relies on conferences not journals) then yes the article does not meet the criteria. Can you please delete the submission? Will look for other CS Australian academics with PL contributions. :)
Thanks! TwinCitiesToNJ (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Going through their CV I suspect that, given the number of papers, etc., they will satisfy the criteria in the future but they are not quite there yet. In this case and for the next one you are looking at a (very rough) rule of thumb would be that in Australia and NZ someone will probably need to be a Prof rather than A/Prof to meet the notability requirements as the things that will get you a promotion to Professor (apart from talking about your subject in the news) are about the same as the things that will give you notability for Wikipedia. One approach if you are looking for people is to look at all of the fellows of a society (List of learned societies in Australia)and check if they have a page.
- There is nothing wrong with leaving the draft as is and it will be auto deleted in 6 months or there may be additional information that helps with notability. If you want the page deleted then just add {{Db-g7}} to the page and it will be deleted within a day or so. Gusfriend (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
New message from Curbon7
Please see my comment at Draft:Madan Prajapat. Note that I'm just giving you a heads-up for future reference, I'm not chastising you or anything like that. Otherwise, keep up the good work Curbon7 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:NCORP and WP:GNG
Hi Gusfriend, the ANI discussion closed as I was writing a reply to your suggestion "it might be a good idea for them to get into the habit of saying WP:NCORP or WP:GNG rather than just referring to NCORP as both can be used for a company or organisation."
I was just going to note WP:SNG states, SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies
. Also, in the WP:ORGCRIT guideline, it is noted, These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.
Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- fyi, the thread is open again, and I posted a reply to your comment there. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Chronology of football on UK television
Hi, I see that you have declined Draft:Chronology of football on UK television on the grounds that it does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own. Whilst I don't totally agree with this, what is true is that the article is incomplete and should remain in draftspace. However I would not want it to be merged with my UK football timeline as at some point when this is complete I feel it would merit an article in its own right and am I able to state this somewhere within the article?
Therefore will the article remain in draftspace because if it does I can continue to cultivate it offline and when I think it is complete, and therefore ready for inclusion on Wikipedia, am I able to re-submit it? Rillington (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)