User talk:Devonian Wombat

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Devonian Wombat,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to express my belated appreciation for your trust and support in my July RfA. My first few months have been slow and uneventful but after some distractions I expect to be more a part. If I can be helpful or if you see me get out of line, I welcome you to approach me directly. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there some reason you are NOT an admin? You seem sensible and uncontroversial. Do I need to look deeper?  ;-) BusterD (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thanks, but really there’s not anything I would use the tools for. Maybe if I get into AfD more I’d think about running, but not at the moment. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Hewitt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 New York City Public Advocate special election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latino.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sincerely respected colleague Devonian Wombat, this is a long-standing study on the experience of the most ancient country and the development of the classics and the family of great scientists and public figures, which are published in multiple encyclopedias. If You don’t like something, please clarify what You don’t like. God Bless You for Your friendly amendments. If You are a friendly person, correct in a friendly way Yourself - we will not be against Your amendments. Antimonopolist (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Abdulsamad Xoshnaw

Hi I edited the article and added new resources in a footnote Please check and guide if necessary Thanks Hassanvahedi1981 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hassanvahedi1981: unfortunately the problem with your draft isn't the sourcing, its the tone and wording of the text itself. The article is currently highly promotional and uses an excess of peacock terms. In order to get your draft accepted, I would recommend rewording the draft to describe the subject more neutrally and in a drier manner. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi I rewrote the whole text and tried my best to stay away from the advertising aspects.I hope I did the right thing this time and understand what you mean Hassanvahedi1981 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Hi I rewrote the text. Thank you for checking the text This is important to me because I will find out if my work is right or not, and this will encourage me to submit more articles to Wikipedia, as well as help correct a flaw in writing articles and gain more experience. thanks Hassanvahedi1981 (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of 2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) 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/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) 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.

Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on 15:13:44, 19 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Vita.cheche

• Vita.cheche (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nassau National Cable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i would like to have more insight into why this draft was not accepted by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nassau_National_Cable It does not rely singlehandedly on the company's websites, and gives references to sources like Financial Times and inc.com

Vita.cheche (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vita.cheche:, your draft was declined because the sources cited did not provide significant coverage of Nassau National Cable, which generally is held to be around two paragraphs of journalism. Specifically, the Financial Times source only mentioned the company in a table as one member of a 500 company list, and the Inc.com source is just a directory listing with no actual coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Help in understanding my mistake in the Darft:Teen Baan.

Hello Devonian Wombat, I am quite confused on how I should change my tone in writing to make the article reliable, and would love to be helped in pointing out the mistakes that I have done which led to your rejection. Marvelcanon1 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marvelcanon1: as the draft is on a mythological subject, it must include information on the analysis, impact and interpretation on that mythology, otherwise it falls afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. Currently, the draft also reads more like a plot summary of the legendary weapon than an encyclopedic article on it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

For reviewing my first article and accepting it. I am reading the links from the item you put on my talk page. Bruxton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tuttle Twins

It's been over a week since the resubmission and no one has reviewed it. Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Old Skull Games

Hello Devonian, I have carefully examined the article for signs of puffery and removed them. We also added references to official sites and article journals, as well as the original logo and categories. If there are any other elements that are preventing the article from being published, please do not hesitate to point them out and I will correct them as soon as possible. Thanks in advance! CMartinNieto (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For reviewing at least 10 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 11 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melting Pot (film)

Hi, regarding the above afd three reliable sources have been found and the nominator has withdrawn so can you please consider your vote in view of the extra sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Japana, Georgia

There are so many AfC submissions pending that I have to deliver this message to you directly. Faster than Thunder (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Lu "Next in Fashion"

Hi Devonian Wombat, I just want to say thank you for taking the time to review my article. This is my first time writing an article for wiki. I have made ammendements and removed out any unnecessary fluff for the bio of the designer I am writing about. I have looked at other Canadians fashion designers and other designers with wiki pages and for Next in Fashion like, Minju Kim to make sure 'known' and 'noted' were used correctly. Their sources are the same kind of sources I am using since this is a considered known entity from reality tv with a career in fashion.

I have edited the piece/resubmitted the article so please let me know how it is when you can. Thank you so much.Mrblackandwhitepanda (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and Questions about Creation of New Articles by Students

Hi Devonian Wombat,

Happy new year.

Thank you for reviewing the satisfaction equilibrium article.

I have a question concerning the following idea to improve/create wikipedia content. As part of the final exam (or even in place of the final exam) for my courses, my students might improve/create an article about a relevant topic missing in Wikipedia. I have noticed that articles in measure theory, which are relevant for both game and information theories, are either in need of work (IMHO) or inexistent. Of course, I will be behind the reviewing process before submission. Their final grade would depend on the quality of the article. These guys, are students chosen by national exams in France and ranked often at the very top. I am sure the quality would match what we need here. Nonetheless, I would like to gather a few opinions from Wikipedians before I implement it. What do you think? Do you know about other experiences of this kind?

Cheers,

Sperlaza

@Sperlaza:, There are specific programs in place to assist with creating student assignments, though I myself am not knowledgable on them. I would recommend taking a look at the WikiEdu instruction page on how to design a course and Wikipedia:Student assignments if you haven't already, and contacting the Wikimedia Foundation here in order to set up a course. If you have any problems or further questions I would recommend asking the Education Noticeboard, the people over there know far more about this stuff than I do. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat:, Thank you very much. My idea is nothing new and it seems the practice is quite standard. No fear for going forward with this. Thank you once again.

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		For your helpful edits to the mayoral election pages of Burlington, Vermont. Jon698 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 03:48:31, 9 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mitchdonnahue

• Mitchdonnahue (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Darren Oved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good Evening Devonian Wombat,

I hope all is well with you.

You noted on my submission draft "Darren Oved" that the submission "does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article." I was wondering what you meant by that. Everything I write in the draft takes a neutral point of view, I discuss the people Darren Oved has defended, with proper sourcing for every statement. In the first part of the article, I describe what Oved does – he is a lawyer – and I then go on to describe what makes him noteworthy (i.e. the different people he has represented and the news coverage he has received). I do not take any particular stance when writing about the news coverage, I merely discuss what each page has written about him. When Oved received attention for a particular issue, I noted precisely that. When I wrote the awards Oved has garnered, I was sure not to provide any descriptive adjectives. I also do not believe I inputted any peacock terms.

Furthermore, I used a range of "independent, reliable, and published data." My sources included Page Six, the Real Deal, Bloomberg News, New York Law Journal, the New York Post, Forbes, Fuse, the Women's Health Magazine, Crain New York, the Verge, and the Super Lawyers' website.

There is no doubt that if there is a problem, it should be fixed. So, if you can please point out where the not neutral point of view is, I would greatly appreciate it so I can speedily fix it.

Thank you so much for your time in reviewing my submission; it is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Mitch

Mitchdonnahue (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mitchdonnahue: the problem with the article is simply that the article serves primarily as a list of the times Oved has been quoted in the media, rather than any actual coverage of the man himself, I did a spotcheck of several prominently cited sources and they mentioned the man only in passing. Because of this, in addition to the baseline notability concerns, the draft in its current state promotes Oved by attempting to tie him to as many events as possible, even when these events are of little relevance. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Good Morning Devonian Wombat,

Thank you very much for your response. I was wondering how might I fix this problem. The part where I write about "Celebrity Representation," Oved is the focus of the articles. Maybe instead of writing "media attention" in the paragraphs that follow, I should write that he was cited in articles? Would that be better?

Thank you. Mitch Mitchdonnahue (talk)

Antarctica featured article review

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari

Hello, Devonian Wombat,

If you want to do a move/delete request, the most typical form for this request to be made is using Twinkle. Select CSD from the drop down Twinkle menu, CSD>General Criteria>G6 Move and then a field opens up for you to add a link to the page you want moved and the admin can delete and move the page in one click. In general, admins don't like to delete pages in advance of a possible page move. If no one acts on this for a while, I'll change the tag myself but these less typical requests can sit for a while. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Liz, I'll make sure to install Twinkle and do that in the future. I am a little concerned though, since I'm tagging in order to complete the Articles for Creation process the moved articles might end up with a bunch of leftover AFC formatting in them that will have to be removed manually. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 16:56:51, 13 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mresmiwiki

• Mresmiwiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ulvi Mansurov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could you please clarify how specifically should I revise the text to get it approved? While writing the text I was doing my best to state the facts without qualitative assessment of them. After the first decline, I adjusted the text and removed a few phrases that could be considered as qualitative and focused only on the facts. References have been added for every paragraph.

I would appreciate if you can indicate the areas that are not acceptable. Thanks!

Mresmiwiki (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mresmiwiki: the main problem with the article is that many positive things are said about numerous companies Mansurov worked at, but the articles cited to support this information do not mention Mansurov, making their attribution to him an unnaceptable synthesis. I would recommend removing any source that does not mention Mansurov directly, and removing the information those references support, as that would make the article more likely to be accepted. I would also recommend swapping around the "title" and "work" parameters in your references, currently those are displaying the opposite information to what they should be. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing and approval

Thanks so much for editing and approving the Ian Seabrook article. He's an interesting cinematographer, worthy of note!: Bethbcpr (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

Pictures from Afghanistan

Hi, I've tried to address the issues of tone that you flagged this article for. Do you find the changes satisfactory enough to remove the tag, or if not, could you point to any issues that need further work? With thanks, CT55555 (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Enzo Enzo

Review it. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:MyQ Solution

Hello Devonian Wombat,

I would just like to ask what exactly is the notobility issue in this draft article. Would I need more sources? If so, how many?

Thanks for your kind help and cheers, Rami9610 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rami9610: the draft doesn't need "more sources", it needs better sources. In order for a source to contribute to notability it must provide significant coverage of the subject (at least a couple of paragraphs), and it also must be independent of the subject, so no interviews, directory listings or company-affiliated websites. When it comes to corporations, an article must also pass WP:CORPDEPTH, which means articles about fundraising announcements or acquisitions do not contribute to notability. Hope this helped. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Peanut App

Hello you recently declined the submission for the Peanut App. I don’t know if you saw but there are plenty of citations created by trustworthy websites and the way the page was created was not advertising at all. Can you please be more specific on the citations or the advertisement that you mentioned on the decline? Thank you in advance 2A02:587:3D17:E983:4507:E022:FD3F:314D (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

2A02:587:3D17:E983:4507:E022:FD3F:314D, the main problem is that the article largely reads as a collection of press releases, rather than an encyclopedia article, though the good news is the references are already sufficient for notability, so once these issues are fixed it would easily be accepted to mainspace. For specific items, I would recommend removing the "history" section entirely, as it's about Michelle Kennedy rather than the company, as well as removing certain examples of promotional language in the "operation" section, specifically "One problem users frequently run into on other platforms are privacy concerns. With women seeking support about sensitive and intimate issues, Peanut aims to provide a safe space for them to connect and share experiences", "the launch of Peanut's TTC community provides access to a dedicated network of women, where members can candidly discuss the topics relating to loss and fertility issues" and " In particular, StartHER aims to tackle the difficulties specific groups have in raising their first capital — typically referred to as the friends and family round".

There are other, more minor issues, but that should be all that's needed for the article to be accepted. Once you're done, you can drop another message on my talk page and I'll review the article again. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat Hello. I have made the adjustments you proposed and also the modification a person from the Kiwi IRC proposed. I merged the history with the operation, to be in chronological order, removed the phrases you suggested and also created an operation section focused more directly on how the app works right now, rather than describing it as it evolved. Let me know if there is anything else I should correct. Thank you so much in advance.

@Emiltak: the article looks alright, though there are definitely still problems, specifically with some irrelevant info in history and you overdetail in the operation section, but I’d say it’s ready for mainspace. Unfortunately, due to a tech issue I won’t be able to accept it, so you’ll have to wait for another reviewer. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Thank you so much for taking the time to review it. I made some more corrections as you can see in the edit history and removed a lot of things, plus added some different citations as well, coming from advisory from another admin on the live chat support IRC page. They helped me a lot with this one. It is not a problem to wait, and even better if you manage to solve the technical issues please keep an eye on it if it hasn't been reviewed until you can review it yourself. Thank you again and have a wonderful day.

Thank you for accepting the submission. You were very helpful. I would like to ask two things if this is possible. 1) How will I be able to insert an image where the information are 2) since someone tagged it as a pr release is there a way to correct that and remove that tag? Emiltak (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 14:06:40, 3 February 2022 for assistance on AfC

Steven Salowsky Salutations Devonian Wombat! I am new here and a fellow stranger that was a wikipedian assisted on very amateur attempt I made at my first article. I don't even know if I am posting this in the correct space lol. I see that the draft states the Comment: The sources are mostly about Rich Benoit, not Salowsky. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC) And noticed the sources do include more about Benoit being he has a louder presence on the YouTube channel, but each article mentioned Salowsky as he is half the operation, being the sole designer and also a builder of the vehicles which deserves its own merit and credit. It is rather odd that they focus on one person more than the other, how would you suggest improving this?

@Thecarguru2: the thing that you can do to try and prove notability is to find sources which talk about Salowsky at length. Generally, the criteria for enough coverage sits at about two paragraphs, so I would recommend looking for sources with that level of coverage of Salowsky specifically. If none of those sources exist, I would say you should instead try to expand the Rich Benoit page if you're interested in that, expanding an existing page is quite a bit easier than creating one from scratch. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me here. I suppose whats confusing there is all these credible sources *are* about them both in numerous paragraphs. Notability is evident in the videos and pictures of him directly used for the articles? This particular article from a smaller media company illustrates his design elements more, ( https://electrek.co/2020/08/24/tesla-cyberquad-diy-electric-atv-100-mph/ ) and this article is at length on both of them ( https://www.hotcars.com/exclusive-rich-rebuilds-never-wanted-to-be-rich-rebuilds-only-teslas/ ) does that suffice? It's a shame to not see them both receive equal parts respect on wikipedia. Thanks again for all your time here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecarguru2 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thecarguru2: I'm afraid there are a couple of more unique problems with those sources. Specifically with the HotCars source, it's actually an interview. This is a problem when it comes to proving notability, because interviews are considered to be primary sources, not secondary sources, and on Wikipedia secondary sources are needed to showcase notability. As for the Electrek source, the problem is mainly that it doesn't really provide information on Salowsky at all, it just mentions his name a couple of times when discussing a video on the Rich Rebuilds channel. All you would really be able to source from that would be a couple of disjointed snippets about that one video, not any real information about Salowsky as a person independent of the Rich Rebuilds channel. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Devonian Wombat!

Your insights have been more than helpful. Ironically, I just got my latest Popular Mechanics catalog and Rich and Steven's car is on the front. Pop Mech does a segment where they have someone whom was a part of the project write the article. Steven Salowsky wrote it, which, is considered a primary source. Though, to be published in a major magazine all statements and words must be verified and fact-checked. I think this should give him some notability, being he deserves just as much recognition as his counterpart? see here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaSqAF3pEmF/?hl=en or a better article than hot cars: https://wonderfulengineering.com/this-diy-electric-atv-mimicking-a-tesla-cyberquad-clocks-at-100-mph/ What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecarguru2 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Mussab Tariq

Hello Sir,

Hope you're doing well. You've rejected my proposed article by saying that *Articles that Tariq has written himself are primary sources, and therefore cannot contribute to notability.* With respect I would like to say that a Columnist is a person who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions those Columns appear in different newspapers, magazines. Being a columnist is, the articles were Published by Leading Verified Newspaper and Magazines as mentioned in the references how it would not contribute to the Notability of Tariq when his credibility and notability are already verified by those agencies. As you said Earlier, Article written by tariq its self are primary source. Its very obvious whenever you work published by agencies they give you credit and sometime make you author profile on their website. In short i would like to say that kindly consider the credibility of those sources where the Articles are published.

Regards. 72.255.42.92 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Mussab Tariq

Hello Sir,

Hope you're doing well. You've rejected my proposed article by saying that *Articles that Tariq has written himself are primary sources, and therefore cannot contribute to notability.* With respect I would like to say that a Columnist is a person who writes for publication in a series, creating an article that usually offers commentary and opinions those Columns appear in different newspapers, magazines. Being a columnist is, the articles were Published by Leading Verified Newspaper and Magazines as mentioned in the references how it would not contribute to the Notability of Tariq when his credibility and notability are already verified by those agencies. As you said Earlier, Article written by tariq its self are primary source. Its very obvious whenever you work published by agencies they give you credit and sometime make you author profile on their website. In short i would like to say that kindly consider the credibility of those sources where the Articles are published. Asim77 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Kindly reply. Asim77 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asim77: apologies for the late reply, you seem to note have realised that the problem with your sources isn't that they're not notable publications, it's that primary sources do not contribute to notability in Wikipedia terms. You need to find articles about Tariq, not written by him. Tariq could have written extensively for The New York Times, and it would not matter if there had not been other articles written about him from secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. But that is a very strange rule in Wikipedia terms. If a person doesn't have any association with Agencies eg. newspapers. It seems obvious that someone has to show the articles on behalf of this person to show credibility but a person who is already associated needs any other sources for the notability. Asim77 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

John Ennis Artist Writer Decline

Are you on drugs? Advertisement? Refs from Washington Post, Multiple Der Spiegel and many IMDB mentions is not advertisement. He's notable and should be included due to others with similar name in same fields, only he's more accomplished.

Undo your bs, it's not advertisement and my original article was less referenced, so these revisions should be fine, they are major media WP and DS. Way bigger media than the references other John Ennis' have.

He is more notable.

Museumcuratormma (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Museumcuratormma: the reason I declined your draft was because as of right now it reads like a resume, not a Wikipedia article. Right now, all it is a list of things Ennis has supposedly accomplished presented in a totally unnaceptable format for a Wikipedia article, with no actual coverage or demonstration of notability used to write a proper biography. Also, many of the references, including IMDb, are not reliable sources, either because they are user-generated or because they clearly do not have proper editorial oversight, such as the cited 9/11 truther website, for example. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Face it, you're biased, he has major media mentions Washington Post and Der Spiegel and others, he's the lead artist on lots of NFT projects, so the #1 Market is a reliable source, he's got exhibits on Museum Sites. There's other people with his name, so there is confusion as to if they are him. WP and DS are more than the other people have with his name. Undo your decline stop being biased. Museumcuratormma (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

World Historical & Cultural Cities Expo, Zynthian, Chris Dorosz, Muhammad Azizul Islam

The following drafts need review because the draft(s) were submitted a long time ago and could be deleted if not reviewed:
World Historical & Cultural Cities Expo, Zynthian, Chris Dorosz, Muhammad Azizul Islam

Faster than Thunder (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Denise Park

Hello, Devonian Wombat,

I have been trying for a while to get a draft published for Denise C. Park, a researcher at the University of Texas at Dallas. I was wondering what exactly I need to do in order to get that done. All of my submissions have been shot down due to sourcing issues, so this last submission I ensured that I had secondary, independent sources for everything.

I also added a stub template for her draft, since I only have a sentence or so for her draft. Will this increase the chances of getting my draft published? Also, what would you recommend if further action needs to be taken?

Best, Jonknox12 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

F. Don Miller

Hello. Thought I should let you know that an AFC submission you accepted, F. Don Miller, has copyvio in it. So far, I've removed copying from 3 sources and I'm working on fully clearing out the copyvio. While I am not an AFC reviewer, I noticed the copyvio when I discovered that another user beat me to writing this article. I hope that you catch future copyvios before they are accidentally accepted at AFC. Thanks :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: damn, I really should have caught that when reviewing the article, that's a Trout for me. Once you've cleared out the copyvios just remember to place a revision deletion request to expunge them from the page history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Clete Willems

Hello. I edited and added citations to the draft Clete Willems article using reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The 12 new citations added to the previous draft provide information on his position as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economics and his role in U.S. China trade negotiations. In your comment on February 21, you said the only coverage on him is announcements of his departure. As examples of new citations that were added to the previous draft, see and . Is it preferable to remove the duplicate citations about his departure from the White House and what else would you advise for improving the draft so it can be published? Thank you for your assistance.

Lance Hayes Page

Hi Devonian Wombat, I previously had an article of Lance Hayes in an article space, though it was removed. In order for me to improve my draft, is it possible for you to recover the source from my published article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Lance_Hayes Thanks, Dark. DarkKnight9337 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)