User talk:Babegriev

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.

V Vescovo Page

Thank you very much for the rollback of an odd edit on the Victor Vescovo page. As mentioned in the talk page, the page has two tags at the top of the page. Not sure why they persist there. Any chance you might be kind enough to review them and taking any action necessary to have them removed? It would be very much appreciated. Happy to assist in any way that is permissible, but not sure what is, given that I am the subject of the article. Best regards, Vlvescovo (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vlvescovo: Thank you for reaching out. The rollback which I had carried out on that page was done through a program called Huggle which assists rollbackers to more efficiently clean up vandalism and disruptive editing. Therefore, I had not had the opportunity to view this entire article until you mentioned it on this page. I've gone ahead and taken a quick look over the article and talk page, and it appears that you are the subject of the article. That being said, there are a few things to keep in mind as a wikipedia contributor. Your edits to the page, to my eye, appear constructive and properly sourced for the most part, however, there is an inherent concern of maintaining a neutral point of view and preventing original research with your conflict of interest as subject and editor. While I'm linking Wikipedia guidelines, I will include WP:OWN which reviews the collaborative efforts of Wikipedia and the avoidance of content ownership.

I do concur with the editor(s) who flagged NPOV and PR issues on Victor Vescovo, and might even recommend additional proofreading for compliance with the manual of style, in particular the words to watch section. My editing experience for these types of cleanups is not great, however, WikiProject Cleanup allows for user submissions of articles which need cleanup. I would suggest you take a peek over there and a much more experienced editor can help with the removal of those tags.

Do feel free to reach out with any other questions or concerns, and happy editing. Babegriev (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Front Row Insurance Brokers article

It is an objective, factual statement that the insurance programs "provide exclusive rates on production insurance and errors & omissions insurance to their members". Since it is factual, I would argue that the tone is fair and proportionate, as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

How would you reword that line to be more NPOV appropriate, then? Please advise.

In addition, the article references many "independent, reliable, published sources", including Toronto Star, Variety, The Globe & Mail, CTV and Yahoo.

@ArthurRobertRobert: Thanks for reaching out! I had provided that quoted snippet as an example of a larger issue on the draft, not specifically targeting that sentence. While the quote it is factual, and even verifiable, it is not exactly encyclopedic. WP:PUFFERY and WP:SOAP are the best places to start if you'd like to read more into the concerns of avoiding content that appears as advertising on Wikipedia. By including content in the format of "exclusive... to their members," while not directly soliciting patronage, it provides undue weight to their product offerings. For a reader with no prior knowledge about the company, this can perceived as advertising.

To answer your question as to how I would phrase that quote differently, I would not include it at all. In terms of content, it does not contribute to a more comprehensive establishment of notability towards the company. If the fact that lower corporate rates led to a public scandal, or otherwise set a foundation for notability, I would phrase it as simply as possible (e.g. "as a result of their policy rates, Front Row Insurance Brokers [Insert notable reason here]") Like I mentioned, however, this is one specific example from an issue related to the draft as a whole. At least to my eye, it currently reads more like promotional content than an encyclopedia article.

I'll also take this opportunity to address the topic of notability. While the reliability and diversity of sources are appreciated, and the draft generally appears to meet WP:GNG, the requirements of WP:NCORP (notability specifically pertaining to companies) appear unmet. More specifically, I'd take a look at WP:INHERITORG provided the notability of the company appears to be reliant on its association with notable films and individuals. To reiterate, the verifiability of content in the draft is not of concern, but the notability of the topic has not yet been established, and therefore it would likely not survive in WP:AFD (article deletion discussions).

In terms of next steps, before submitting the draft for review again, I would advise double- and triple- checking WP:NCORP to ensure that the guidelines are effectively met. Speaking as optimistically as possible: not all subjects and topics are notable. Just because a topic may become notable in the future does not mean it is notable now. Also keep in mind that Notability is not temporary. If notability is established, take a look over at the resources on WikiProject cleanup, and potentially have one of the great editors there take a closer look at improving the article for tone and preventing content from being perceived as promotional.

Of course, feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. Happy editing! Babegriev (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback Request

Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article Puppetry of the Penis on WikiProject Theatre. I have been editing this article for over a month, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor of WikiProject Theatre, and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the article and provide me any feedback. Any general feedback would be much appreciated and possibly an assessment of the article for importance and quality. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rubyredgirl: Please see the article talk page. Feel free to reach out with questions/concerns/comments/grievances. Thanks! Babegriev (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Query

I have just noticed at this page that you have accused me of not adhering to style, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.0.204.19

I corrected the name Hoebridge Preparatory School to Hoe Bridge Preparatory School. There is nothing stylistic about it. It is quite literally the name of the school as can be seen on their website here https://www.hoebridgeschool.co.uk/

It is confusing that the golf club is called Hoebridge and the school is called Hoe Bridge, but they are factually accurate. I trust you won't support inaccurate edits again. 86.0.204.19 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)