User talk:-noah-

Archives (Index)

2020/December 2021/January

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
209		Secure Fence Act of 2006 (talk)	Add sources
4,392		Left-wing politics (talk)	Add sources
184		Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (talk)	Add sources
3,792		Presidential transition of Joe Biden (talk)	Add sources
153		Oval Office address (talk)	Add sources
3,146		Trump family (talk)	Add sources
9		European Film Gateway (talk)	Cleanup
3,197		Dissolution of the Soviet Union (talk)	Cleanup
138		De-escalation (talk)	Cleanup
38		Committee on Climate Change (talk)	Expand
15		Luisa Ortega Díaz (talk)	Expand
570		President of Venezuela (talk)	Expand
408		Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
395		Brian Kolfage (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
668		Speedrun (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
96		Trade negotiation between the UK and the EU (talk)	Merge
166		Theories of the Black Death (talk)	Merge
6,181		Spotify (talk)	Merge
587		William I of the Netherlands (talk)	Wikify
99		Napoleon and the Jews (talk)	Wikify
428		Video game music (talk)	Wikify
4		Liang Yu (activist) (talk)	Orphan
5		Sky Blossom (talk)	Orphan
5		Stadler GTW in Greece (talk)	Orphan
22		John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (talk)	Stub
30		Orkdal Fjord (talk)	Stub
68		Ondřej Kaše (talk)	Stub
6		Charles Codman (talk)	Stub
169		Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
21		Matthew White (historian) (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Midland City, Ohio (February 3)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Midland City, Ohio and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Midland City, Ohio, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, NoahDavid771! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting to add a summary of my changes to /* Orthodox traditional views */ on the page about Junia (New Testament Person)

Hey NoahDavid771, thanks for your diligence in correcting errors and vandalism on the "Junia (New Testament Person)" page. Apparently I forgot to add an explanation of why I was removing that text. I have now redone that removal, but with a summary and explanation. For your convenience, here is a copy of that explanation:

"I removed the text about scholarly views of Junia's gender and apostleship because they seemed out of place in the section on the Orthodox Church's views traditional views. However, I've copied most of this section into the sections "Junia's gender" and "Apostolic status" so as to preserve the information. (Sorry for forgetting to write a summary the first time.)"

Once again, I apologize for the confusion. Now that I've explained it, would you agree that this makes more sense?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.222.140 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Surviving Death

Thank you for your help patrolling new changes on Wikipedia, —PaleoNeonate – 14:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to David Moyes have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.Template:Z186 Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
42		Rookantha Gunathilake (talk)	Add sources
9		Dasun Madushan (talk)	Add sources
93		Lazarus Long (talk)	Add sources
202		Vertebral subluxation (talk)	Add sources
6		Brandon Roberts (American football) (talk)	Add sources
67		Laurence Rees (talk)	Add sources
114		Roslyn, Washington (talk)	Cleanup
596		Thaanaa Serndha Koottam (talk)	Cleanup
708		Atmospheric entry (talk)	Cleanup
35,638		Perseverance (rover) (talk)	Expand
1,476		Dictatorship (talk)	Expand
8,486		RuPaul's Drag Race (talk)	Expand
37		Kabaw Valley (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
28		Philosophy of conspiracy theories (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12		Independent State of Rainbow Creek (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8		Massachusett dialects (talk)	Merge
138		Massachusett language (talk)	Merge
512		Satay (talk)	Merge
70		Dickson Etuhu (talk)	Wikify
202		William Shenstone (talk)	Wikify
6,701		Prime Video (talk)	Wikify
4		Oregon State University Mars Rover (talk)	Orphan
8		Visual Risk (talk)	Orphan
4		Edwin Rowlands (talk)	Orphan
9		Ellensburg High School (talk)	Stub
3		The Museum of Art, Kōchi (talk)	Stub
5		Ellensburg Rodeo (talk)	Stub
94		PillPack (talk)	Stub
10		Ajith Bandara (talk)	Stub
10		Tokyo Zokei University (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Please do visit Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the same if you find interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi -noah-. 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! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Daily Mail reference at Jules Koundé

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Jules Koundé. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlos Cruchaga has been accepted

Carlos Cruchaga, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Noah!^💬 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hello, Noah,

Before you tag any more pages for speedy deletion, please review the CSD criteria at Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Also, if an administrator removes a CSD tag you placed on a page, do not replace the tag with the same criteria. It just becomes a form of edit warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dan

Hey, Just drop onto my dad's page occasionally and add facts /remove incorrect info. I'm adding real fact..if a journo interviewed me it would be verifiable as far as the Wiki rules reads at a glance. Im not really interested in fighting with pedants on the ins and outs of verifying info. Its my dad. I know what he did...I sat and watched writing/filming etc...held his hand as he faded away in his last hours .I could trawl the internet for links and scraps but ...meh...I think if I was trolling Trump or Thatcher's pages with abuse ,the denizens of Wiki would have some valid points to remove my edits. In my case and on my dad's little page , its an irritant.

I hope I'm putting this chat in the correct box Noah. Regards Dan

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zakk Cervini has been accepted

Zakk Cervini, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Noah!^💬 16:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Jan Owen article!

Thanks so much, Noah; greatly appreciated; my first article! Feels good:-)

Have a few others in mind but will concentrate on doing more editing for now, to improve my Wiki skills.

Actually, 'Jan Owen' does need a disambiguation page, since there are now three:

• 'Jan Owen', the poet, is the default
• Jan Owen (artist)
• Jan Owen (social entrepreneur)

So, will read up about how to create one of those pages, and give it a go.

Thanks again

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidetalg2 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Noah

Your critique of the first draft of the Jan Owen (social entrepreneur) article was spot-on. The descriptions of the roles of the various organisations she has been involved in did tend to 'peacock' language. Overall, the text didn't scan particularly well, especially from an encyclopedic perspective. Commendations on your eye.

I have endeavored to address those short-comings in the re-submitted article. To my eye, at least, the article has been greatly improved; can but hope you concur!

Thanks again for your help with this.

David

Hi Noah

(I hope this is the right way to respond to your message; am a newbie! Please advise if otherwise!)

Thanks so much for your helpful comments and pointers on how to improve my article on Jan Owen (social entrepreneur); greatly appreciated! I am glad it passes the Notability requirements, and look forward to improving the text.

Would be most grateful for any examples where the text is inappropriate. On my reading, each sentence is a flat statement, with no peacock terms. The language reads to me as formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. Each statement of fact is supported by a citation. Honestly, I am at a loss as to how to improve it?!

Having non-government leaders (or 'non-profit leader', which I think is the preferred term in the US?) publicly recognised is so important, in my view, and Wikipedia is a key way to do that.

Stand ready, willing and able to follow your guidance to improve my first effort!

Thanks again,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidetalg2 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Noah

Your observations are most helpful; I see what you are saying. There are peacock-like terms in the description of what the organisations do. I will edit those back.

Thanks again for your help; hugely appreciated.

DavidDavidetalg2 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: Jan is a woman - in Australia, Jan is a common female name; blame the Brady Bunch!.

Request on 10:22:13, 4 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by EmmaP89

• EmmaP89 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cottonwood Technology Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Noah David, Thank you for taking the time to review my draft Cottonwood Technology Fund. I was surprised to learn that you did not give permission for the publication, because it was written in the exact same style as the Wikipedia article about Sapphire Ventures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire_Ventures Please note that I am NOT the author of the Wikipedia article about Sapphire Ventures. I used it as an example. Could you please explain to me why the article about Sapphire Ventures was approved and mine about Cottonwood Technology Fund was declined? I don't see major differences. Many thanks for your help!

EmmaP89 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Your decline of Georges Bettembourg

Hi Noah, thanks for reviewing my draft of Georges Bettembourg. I have reasonable experience in creating pages and am quite active on AfD discussions so I was surprised that you declined to publish the page, given it squarely satisfies WP:GNG. I appreciate the workload you'll be under so understand why you provided only a template explanation for your reasons, but the draft indeed includes 4 "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The subject existed prior to the internet so sources are limited but those cited are completely satisfactory. Could I ask you to please reconsider or provide more reasoning? Thanks in advance,Cabrils (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sinyo Adi

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

Non notable film, fails WP:NFILM

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. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your decline of Ahmed Kamel

Hi, thanks for reviewing my article about the artist Ahmed Kamel. He has a german (here) wiki-article, so I translated this with help of a native-speaker. We included several reliable, secondary sources in english, different to the german wiki-page. Please tell what I should do now and where are the "peacock terms" in this article? I don't understand why the community is declining this article again! What to do better? I am a wiki-author in Germany since 2013 and do publishing several pages every week. --Gnomad (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, just because someone is notable in another language doesn't necessarily mean they are notable here. The criteria for the notability of an artist is:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

Ahmed Kamel does not satisfy this.

1. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

Ahmed Kamel does not satisfy this.

1. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Notable (as in it is an article), so Ahmed Kamel does not satisfy this.

1. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

(a) No (b) No (c) No (d) No Therefore, Ahmed Kamel is not currently suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Noah!^💬 15:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, this is not correct. I wonder if you are a connoisseur of the art scene? There are several points to look further on.

1. There are more secondary references that cover specifically the artist and his work. Regarding the notability of the prizes/grants, Kamel has received the prestigious art grant of Germany's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a personal meeting with the current Federal President of Germany (then Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier).
2. Kamel´s work has been a substantial part of acclaimed exhibitions, e.g., „Cairo. Open City.“, which was awarded the prize for „The Exhibition of the Year“ in 2013 by the International Association of Art Critics - and exhibited at: Museum Folkwang, Essen, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg, Photography Museum Braunschweig, 5th European Month of Photography, Berlin (Germany’s largest photography festival), and East Wing, Doha, Qatar.
3. His works are part of the permanent collections of Museum Folkwang, and The Ministry of Culture of Egypt.
4. His work has been featured on TV as well as in national and international journals and newspapers, e.g. Westdeutscher Rundfunk, TAZ Die Tageszeitung, Universes in Universe/Nafas, Al-Hayat , Al-Ahram, or Akhbar el-Yom. --> points b)c)d) Thanks, --Gnomad (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yole Marinelli moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Yole Marinelli, is not suitable as written to remain published. 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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Machine translations

Please do not create machine translations in general but especially do not do so without WP:ATTRIBUTION. Tjisadane is a copy of id:Tjisadane (film), Sinyo Adi is a copy of id:Sinyo Adi, Mustika Ibu is a copy of id:Mustika Ibu and this is a copy of Donald Trump and there are countless others cross-wiki. Please take the time to go and properly attribute any edits you've made that were copied from elsewhere. Thanks. CUPIDICAE💕 16:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not know about that translation policy, I will attribute it now. Noah ^💬 16:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am also concerned about your comment here. What about iMDb meets WP:NFILM when it doesn't even meet our requirements for being reliable? CUPIDICAE💕 18:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah... I didn't read it properly. I thought it said sufficient and not insufficient.  Self-trout Noah ^💬 18:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Article for Hoth band.

Hello. I see that you have declined my submission for my article about the band Hoth. Your reason was that they did not receive any charting, gold albums, or awards, saying that it makes them unnotable. Although you are correct in saying that, you are incorrect in saying that those reasons make them unnotable, as according to Wikipedias notablilty requirements, they say that for a band or musical artist to be notable, they must follow ONE of their criteria, not all. Now, the first criteria is that they must be directly written about in 3 or more independant reliable sources, which i cited in my article. Therefore my article IS notable, and you were incorrect in declining my article. If you think that i am incorrect in saying that, please explain to me why. Thank you, Cboi Sandlin (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that you have not responded. Please respond to my message, thank you Cboi Sandlin (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Cboi Sandlin:. A reliable source is news, or a magazine with a reputation for fact-checking (not blogs). Noah ^💬 13:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Which is exactly what i put. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cboi Sandlin: So... what you're saying is Angry Metal Guy, a self-described blog is not a blog, correct? Noah ^💬 13:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so that one is a blog, i am sorry i missed that, ill be sure to take that off. Still, that is just one of my sources, all of my others are reliable, respected metal publications. You declining my article because of one of my sources is silly. Still, i will go back and remove the Angry Metal Guy citations. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Noise Beneath the Show is also a blog. Noah ^💬 14:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:59:11, 12 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by DianeKelly

• DianeKelly (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mackenzie Lee Foster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting assistance on draft for Mackenzie Lee-Foster. I am confused as to why it gets rejected as my sources are reliable publications. I made the changes that were recommended by the last reviewer. Please help. 

DianeKelly (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I elaborated as to why on the page. Noah ^💬 19:04, 12 March 2021 (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) 20:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your review of 'List of world records in life saving'

Thanks for the feedback. I am new to Wikipedia and appreciate all the help I can get. In terms of reliability, I have now included at the very beginning a key reference to the ILS records page. The Intl Life Saving Federation is in fact the only governing body who can officially ratify times, making them unquestionable. I have also updated all of the secondary references, by adding whatever information was previously missing and using the correct style in the citations. I trust that was all you meant with your comment: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." But in case you implied further improvements I'd appreciate if you could be more specific with your directions. Best Creiamo (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creiamo (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan David has been accepted

Susan David, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Noah ^💬 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Mirrorman

I dont understand, there are sources in the article that can be verified. Floris Vleppenstein (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The sources are mostly links to other Wikipedia articles. You can't use Wikipedia as a source for itself, as anyone can (and does) write anything and there is no established body for fact checking. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Bertus Borgers

Hi. I've declined the A7 tag on this, as I quickly found a source that shows Borgers has collaborated with Golden Earring. The CSD policy requires every revision of an article to meet the criteria, and this article has a history of people doing minor edits, with at least one source being added and then taken out. So I don't feel comfortable making a unilateral call on it. I've left a PROD tag on the article, because two sentence permastub isn't very useful, and if nobody's prepared to put the work in to improve it in 16 years, it's probably not going to get done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Pennaal

Hi Noah,

Would you be willing to take another look at my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pennaal_-_the_music_series? I saw you rejected it based on a lack of notability referencing the general notability guidelines. I think the subject satisfies those based on their language based notability in Malayalam and mention of such in the language media. I'm curious to get your thoughts on how I could improve from here.

Thank you for your time. Tomyworld (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tomyworld: I have looked at it again. The general notability guideline states that it needs in-depth coverage in reliable news sources. Not just passing mentions. For example, it would need an article in a major Malayam news source Then, looking at it from the Musical notability, Pennaal has not been on the chart of any major radio station, nor has it reached the national charts, won an award, or been certified gold or above. So, it is lacking notability. When it reaches either one of those, it will satisfy notability. Noah ^💬 18:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Noah:, Thanks for this input. If you see the references, they all are leading news channels in Malayalam - TV or newspapers. They mention it as the first ever initiative of this kind. I understand the point on awards - but thats the way forward. I can see Wiki pages for very low profile singles or movies which do not have any significance. I can show many such. Atleast, this one passes through the lives of women and acclaimed by media. There is a speciality in the song for each stage that is potrayed. Very upsetting to see this bias. Tomyworld (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please slow down

Please slow down with AFC, as well as elsewhere. You've accepted a number of dubious, promotional or poorly sourced drafts and gone around and subverted a CU's direct request not to tag a disruptive sock. VAXIDICAE💉 18:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also can you please explain what this move was? VAXIDICAE💉 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I had moved it to the Draftspace. Noah ^💬 19:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't address any of the other mind-boggling bad accepts/attempt at SPI clerking. VAXIDICAE💉 19:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

After reading some of my recent reviews you are probably right, I should slow down. Noah ^💬 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hello -noah-. Tell me what a reliable source is. Nick (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Nick: A reliable source is either something related to the subject the article is dealing with (eg. for a cricket player, some kind of publication relating to cricket) or a major news outlet that is believed to publish true information. Noah ^💬 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So my blog on cricket would be OK, since it's a publication relating to cricket ? Nick (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick: No, because it is self published. Noah 💬 20:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@-noah-: what about medium.com, would you call it a reliable source that would contribute to notability?--- Possibly (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 20:00:02, 18 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by TimTheDragonRider

• TimTheDragonRider (talk · contribs)
  • User:TimTheDragonRider/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Noah, you recently reviewed (and declined) one of my article drafts (Grabauornis). I was wondering if you could give me some pointers on how to properly reference, since the article was copied / translated from the Dutch article. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimTheDragonRider: I added one more source so it could be verifieded. Noah ^💬 13:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@-noah-: Can I resubmit it then?

Sig

Your sig with the yellow and shadow is almost unreadable. Please consider changing (at the very least) the colour. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to something more readable. Noah ^💬 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Crown Office

Hello, you’ve recently rejected my submission on the basis that it has not sufficient references, specifically on the issue of the 3.5 employees.

This is the only part of the article which is not referenced, and that is due to it being provided by a fellow researcher of mine, who was informed that the Crown Office employs “3.5 staff” in private correspondence by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. As this is a rather private letter and not a Freedom of Information request, I could not include it as a reference, thus I’ve left it without any citation until the Crown Office does answer my Freedom of Information request.

Other than that, as I said, everything is referenced, so what do you refer to when you say that the article does not have sufficient reliable sources, considering I’ve used Freedom of Information requests, Acts of Parliament and Gazette notices as sources? MaximusWikipedian (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@MaximusWikipedian: There are entire subsections of the article that are completely unsourced, for example:

The Crown Office is also responsible for sealing with the Great Seal of the Realm all documents that need to pass under that seal, once the authority for the use of the seal is signified by the Sovereign (authorization to use the Seal is granted either by the monarch signing a warrant that approves the draft text of letters patent, directs that they be prepared and authorizes them to be sealed and issued; or by the Sovereign directly signing the letters patent that are to pass under the great seal, as is necessary in some cases, such as with letters patent that grant Royal Assent to bills passed by Parliament and with instruments of consent relating to royal marriages)." is unsourced. Noah ^💬 23:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@-noah-: I see. I will reorganize the references so it is clear that everything is sourced, but the Crown Office is a very secretive part of the Ministry of Justice which does not even have a website. A lot of information is simply known by constitutional and royal scholars due to the importance of the work made by the said office, but is not publically available outside of that circle.

Another issue I have is the fact theres already Crown Office, though that page was only created to redirect to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which was wrong and thus I moved the redirect to Crown Office (Scotland), so I believe, should my submission be approved, the current Crown Office should be deleted. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@MaximusWikipedia: In that case I still cannot accept it, because of our policies of verifiability. Noah ^💬 01:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@-noah-: I've fixed the issues you've pointed out. Thank you very much - I'll just wait for it to be reviewed again.

Waltzing Matilda Aviation

Hi! Just curious about your rationale for accepting Waltzing Matilda Aviation via AFC? It has very weak sourcing, and three of the sources were prnewswire.com. --- Possibly (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to understand more about Draft:Sowerby Row

I'm interested in your rationale for moving it to draft. I don't often work with geographic articles, so a little education for me will be appreciated, please. It has the look and feel of a mainspace article, so what piqued your interest? Fiddle Faddle 15:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent. Hello. My main reason for moving it to the Draftspace was the creator's habit of making largely unsourced articles about places which will likely lead to a restriction on creating articles in the mainspace (see ANI), and the unnecessary and unsourced section on demographics. Noah ^💬 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

-noah-, Crikey. We could do without another Florida Army type of restriction. Good catch Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

About 14th century in architecture and 1300s in architecture

Hi, I see you have copied content from 14th century in architecture to 1300s in architecture and made the latter a redirect to the former. However, this causes history attribution to be lost per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please consider requesting the round-robin move on WP:RM/TR if uncontroversial or WP:RM if controversial. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

duration of reviewing an article

Greetings Mr. Noah & Good morning I would appreciate it if you would inform me about the timing and the duration of reviewing my article , I according to the list most of the list was reviewed and my article is remaining . (afc articles 5days age .... ) some how I'm checking the whole list every day and i could see the changes in the list . thanks for giving me your time and your guidance best regards Neda Sajedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neda.sajedi (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Neda Sajedi. AfC Drafts are reviewed in no specific order. I will review your draft now.. Noah ^💬 22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	thanks for giving me your time and i appreciate it Neda.sajedi (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:27:38, 25 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 174.6.93.32

• 174.6.93.32 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vancouver Tenants Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Noah, you have just reviewed my draft for the creation of the Vancouver Tenants Union article. i have confirmed with experienced editors that i have 5 articles which confirm notability ( directly about the Union from reliable news outlet ) and while i know some of the other articles mention the vtu rather than make the VTU the main subject, they are necessary to confirm the VTU's history. so i do have in fact 5 articles that show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you base your review on these to avoid me having to remove the other articles only to add them again once the article is published ? thank you for your help with this, it has been over a month that i am trying to create this article and we are all unpaid volunteers here. Merci !

L'Union fait la Force!

174.6.93.32 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

174.6.93.32. I actually think you might be right - I wasn't entirely sure about its notability so I looked in the edit history to see if changes were made since it was declined and I didn't see any changes by anyone since the previous declining user edited it, but I realized the user was actually improving the article. I will resubmit and accept it. Noah ^💬

Please elaborate on your COI

On March 15th, you created and accepted your own draft into mainspace, 11 days later, you disclosed a conflict of interest with the subject. Can you please clarify how you came to have a COI here after the fact or did you fail to disclose it initially? And if so, knowing full well as an AFC reviewer, why you moved it yourself without having an independent, non-COI editor review it? VAXIDICAE💉 15:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae I was adding sourced information about a notable person and I was confident it wouldn't affect the article. I will know for next time. Noah ^💬 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That does not address the issue. You have a conflict of interest and presumably had one when you created it and still decided to pass it through AFC yourself, as the reviewer, when we expect other COI editors to go through AFC so an independent editor can review it. Why did it also take you 11 days to disclose? This is not a good use of AFC reviewing rights. VAXIDICAE💉 15:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Your two COI articles

Would you mind placing {{Connected contributor}} on their talk pages, please? Thank you for using AFC to handle them and for making a User Page declaration Fiddle Faddle 18:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

They didn't use AFC to handle them, they accepted their own COI draft. VAXIDICAE💉 18:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae The main space one, I agree. Thank you for the correction. There is a draft space one currently. Both need the template Fiddle Faddle 18:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I added the template. Noah ^💬 18:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:18:46, 26 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jthorp72

• Jthorp72 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CTB, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jthorp72 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Noah - I just received your review information for the CTB, Inc. page. You mentioned needing more references for the brands. Are you saying that there is enough citation support for CTB, Inc. itself, but not its individual brands? Or does CTB, Inc. need more citations regarding the corporate entity?

Also, if it is the individual product brands that need more citations and they aren't available, is it still ok to list the brands as something owned by CTB, but just not go into any details about when they were acquired, and such? I purposefully left out many of the acquisitions because there was no adequate citations available (beyond press releases, which aren't considered proper citations).

Just making sure I understand what needs edits and additional support before moving forward. Thanks for your time!

Hi Jthorp72. I'm saying that the list of primary brands see sources. Noah ^💬 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Improving Draft:Kate Duncan (furniture maker)

Hi -noah-,

I still feel like quite a Wikipedia newb so I apologize if this is not the correct way to message you.

You declined my article Draft:Kate Duncan (furniture maker) and I'm looking for some feedback. I wrote that bio because I see Kate as kick-a** woman stiring things up in a male-dominated industry in a really significant way. The fact that she was feed up with sexist discrimination at tradeshows so she started her own is pretty amazing! I can see how the article may be seen as promotional piece for her tradeshow but that certainly isn't the intent. However, her tradeshow is the cornerstone of the story so I need to describe it without coming across as promotional.

Also, that draft was written entirely using content found online. There's lots of information about her online including in The Globe and Mail and National Post (Canada's two most significant, national news publications) and the Vancouver Sun (one of Vancouver's most significant news publications). Are there some references I've used that don't meet Wikipedia standards that I should remove?

I'd appreciate any guidance you can give me on improving the article.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.C.Somborac (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi S.C.Somborac. She definitely looks notable. Most of the sources look fine, except for the interviews which are not reliable. Saying that she is the only woman in a male-dominated industry isn't actually encyclopedic, and comes off as very promotional. Noah ^💬 17:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback -noah-. I removed the "male-dominated industry" phrase and all content derived from interviews, as you suggested. S.C.Somborac

Your changes to year articles

Please revert all the changes you have just made to "Year in literature" and "Year in [place]" articles, and obtain consensus for these on the relevant discussion pages before continuing. Deb (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

:-) Yes, there are. That's why you shouldn't make wholesale changes like this unless you're sure it's what people want. Deb (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your edits. Please consider this as a learning opportunity; you obviously do need consensus for every minor change you make using AWB, but if you are planning on making hundreds of significant edits to a single type of article, please make sure you do have some form of consensus (even if SILENT) so as to avoid needing to roll all of those edits back, or at worst potentially having your AWB access revoked. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject India's Collaborations of the month invites you

You're specially invited to join the WikiProject India's Collaboration of the month program.

The collaboration will help promote many articles to the good and featured article status, but to do so, we need your help! For further information, see the main page of the collaboration.

Sign up for this collaboration by listing your username under the participants section and regularly participating in the collaboration. If you have already signed, please ignore this message.

You can discuss this newsletter here.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

---

Sent by Hulged ⟨talk⟩ on behalf of WikiProject India. Thank you!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Employer on user page

Hey Noah, thanks for your feedback. I'm new to Wikipedia and therefore I'm still getting used to the different features and subpages in the background. I saw your comment regarding the missing employer info on my user page. Where can I fill in this info? I already had someone from Wikipedia (Germany) verify me and the company I work for because we had to do changes for another artist of ours in the past. Would be thankful for your help, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanineVi (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Black panther

I switched the paragraphs to move the older ref Kawanishi et al. (2010) BEFORE the later one Da Silva et al. (2017). But either way is ok. WRONG is adding the words and link to 'European Russia', as 1) none of the refs that I added in past years to black panther supports this : not a single black leopard has been recorded in Russia; and 2) see the following edits by same user re *Leopard and Europe*: on 27 Jan and following edits; again on different page on 1 Feb, follow page history to 24 Feb when s/he added refs that did NOT support the claimed argument; despite discussions at Talk:Lynx#Persian_leopard_removal?, s/he again added Europe on 9 March. Therefore : please revert when you see 'European Russia' added again to this page. Thanks -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Those sources did support what I said, and in the case of this article, I'm not talking about black panthers being in Europe, I'm talking about the leopard's distribution as a whole. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this until you understand. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Translated article

Hi Noah. I simply translated the French version of this page (Bruno Maïorana) into English. If the references aren't good enough for the English version - why are they acceptable for the French? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeromuald (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Princeromuald:. Different wikis have different notability guidelines - an artist who is notable in France might not be notable in English. Also, most of the sources appear to be effectively just blogs, not major news sources. Noah ^💬 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I thought it was a bit weak myself, but figured a straight translation might get faster approval.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:FloridaArmy

A tag has been placed on User:FloridaArmy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No editor should create a user page except the editor whose page it is.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ——Serial 17:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Oops! I was trying to comment on an AfC submission but I created the userpage by mistake. Noah ^💬 17:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, the reference to NBAND suggested that. Sorry about the template, it's automatically generated by Twinkle. ——Serial 17:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Albert Angier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albert Angier 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/Albert Angier 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.

Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Younousse Sèye

Hi! I saw you put a POV tag on Younousse Sèye. I've never had this tag added to an article I've created before, so I was wondering if you had any advice on how to handle? I'm not seeing anything on the talk page about specifically what violates NPOV, and I have no connection to the subject and based it on secondary sources, so I'm not sure what changes I should make. Would appreciate any guidance! Thanks. Bookworm-ce (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Bookworm-ce:. I put the tag on because there was a lot of slightly promotional fluff, for example, "Sèye played an important role" isn't actually needed in the article, it could just be changed to the specific things she has done. Noah ^💬 13:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, I went in and made a few edits along those lines — let me know if it looks OK. In the past I've had issues with reviewers saying I needed to more explicitly state why an article's subject was notable, so may have been an overcorrection on my part. Thanks! Bookworm-ce (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19

Wikipedia:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ranko Alimpić

Hi Noah. I just saw that you draftified Draft:Ranko Alimpić after Drmies had moved it to mainspace, and I'm not quite sure why – you declined the submission as improperly sourced, but the actual references look fine to me (granted, the citations were completely broken, but it was relatively easy to make them at least somewhat readable). Drafts don't need to be more than stub-quality when they go to mainspace (and they have far better chances of getting improved there than in draftspace); they just need to be in a shape where they'd survive AfD, and I believe this would. Could you explain what your reasoning was? Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 01:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blablubbs, I appreciate you. Noah, I also found this problematic. First of all, I suppose I can understand why you turned it down the first time, but the sources, while not well handled, indicated plenty notability. I mean, the guy was a general--that's a pretty good start. But why you moved it a second time, when I was already working on it, that's crazy. And looking over this talk page I see more problems--you thought IMDB was a reliable source and that an entry there meant a film was notable, you turned down a biography on a clearly notable mountaineer, you wrote up Susan David and half of it was pure promotion, etc. Established editors have questioned your judgment in moving some articles to mainspace (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Angier and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waltzing Matilda Aviation); new and other editors have questioned your judgment in not moving notable topics. Also pinging User:Nick, User:Praxidicae, User:Possibly (you never answered their question about Medium, BTW). Drmies (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I also did not get an answer on why Waltzing Matilda was accepted (including its use of Prnewswire.com 3X). Noah, it seems like you are doing some good work, but it is mixed in with some items that show a need to understand our sourcing standards better. --- Possibly (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Noah. I see you've been actively editing but haven't responded here. That is of course your prerogative, but – and this is just some personal advice – I would recommend replying. We all make mistakes, and that's completely okay, but in my experience the best way to respond to feedback (even if it's negative) is to acknowledge it and ask questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 18:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I did make a mistake with those. I have a question. Does everything in the draft have to be cited if it is not a BLP? Because most of my declines were based on that. The IMDB thing was just me completely misreading the guidelines, and I should have googled what PRNewswire actually was. Noah ^💬 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not – even many C- or B-class articles don't have inline citations for every claim they make; the only strict sourcing requirement for non-BLPs is whether they clearly establish notability. The only crucial questions to ask at AfC are:

• "Does it fulfil any of the CSD criteria?"
• "Is it an advertisement, covert or not?"
• "Would it survive AfD?"

Articles do not need to be particularly well-written or complete – in most cases, getting something that's clearly notable and not an ad into mainspace is going to help get more editors to work on it, which makes it far more likely that an article is going to improve than if it lingers in draftspace. Please feel free to ask here or on my talk page if you have any other questions. Best, Blablubbs|talk 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Got it, I will know for future. Thank you! 20:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Pirates! Gold

I have declined the draft, and removed the G6 tag from the redirect. There has been recent controversy, so that the deletion of the redirect is not non-contentious. Also, G6 should only be used on redirects which have minor history. It should not be used on redirects that have significant history, that is, were articles and were cut down to redirects. I am asking the author to discuss with User:Onel5969. I am not saying that I think that the split should happen, or that the split shouldn't happen. But we shouldn't just delete the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello

If this fails, nominate the article for deletion & notify me. Celestina007 (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:NS Mat '54

Hello -noah-

I noticed that you did a review on my entry on Draft:NS Mat '54 and that you declined it. The article is actually a translation of an article in Dutch but i did include sources to support the information about the train. These sources are all in Dutch and i understand that this makes it a little complicated. I wonder what i should add more to make this entry reliable enough for Wikipedia.

Regards --Weetjesman (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Weetjesman:,

I probably should have commented - the main thing I was concerned about was the formatting of the references. You can see the tutorial here: Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Thanks, Noah ^💬 13:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello -noah- Thank you for this feedback. I changed the references. Is there anything more i can do to make the article good enough for publication?

Regards --Weetjesman (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Antonio Vega Macotela's draft article rejected for notability: I kindly disagree and would like you to reconsider

Hello Noah,

You just rejected my article on artist Antonio Vega Macotela. I'd like to note that I further edited after the first 2 comments and the artist's profile fits WP:ARTIST as stated below. Coverage and representation has been referenced in the article. The Documenta Fair by itself is the most prestigious art fair in the world, where only outstanding artists get to show their work.

"The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Moreover, the artist already has a page in Dutch, which I completed with a lot more information and references. What should I do so that the article can be considered again?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorbam (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm quite confused by many of your AFC accepts, but most mind boggling is this one which is almost entirely unreadable, a clear machine translation, unattributed and cites Wikipedia. What compelled you to accept it? VAXIDICAE💉 16:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I accepted it per *all* the advice on my talk page.

1. Clearly notable

2. Not promotional

with issues I can tag later. Noah ^💬 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No one is debating whether it's notable, but it should at least be readable and I have some concerns about whether or not you actually bothered to read the draft before accepting it...VAXIDICAE💉 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be feeling under pressure

Sometimes we see a real deal of advice, especially with what to accept, what to decline, and what to reject at AFC. Even the most experienced reviewer can struggle with some drafts. When I struggle, I go back to the basic principle: Would this draft fail an immediate deletion process? And when I cannot decide I move to the next draft. I am confident that another reviewer will solve the thing I feel unable to solve, and make a decision.

I used to put myself under pressure of daily, self imposed targets. That was me making my life harder. I made more poor decisions under that pressure than with no pressure.

Might I suggest you ease up on yourself, and remove all pressures, making only clear accept, decline or reject decisions, but watching what others do with the drafts you find hard to review? That is likely to be better than all the advice any of us can give you. Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this statement. I know we've got a huge backlog etc, but for a task that is sometimes a drain and often brings scrutiny, jumping in feet first is not always the best of ideas. Don't feel bad for skipping a draft or asking a second opinion (if anything, that shows more aptitude than barraging your way through everything. My talk page is always open for advice. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I immersed myself far too deeply in Wikipedia in general and AFC in particular some years ago.If you look at my contributions record you will see loads of activity, then a great gap. I competed with myself to be better and better.I doubt I achieved that. What I did achieve was burnout, burnout that lasted for several years.

Today I do less. I probably don't do it better nor worse than I did pre-burnout, but I have set Wikipedia and AFC into perspective. They are a pleasant pastime. It's a good pastime, a useful one, but needs always to be fun. The moment in any day the fun starts to slip away, I close my laptop. I'm pretty sure Primefac will agree with me on the need for it to stay fun.

I think I've a pretty decent grip on reviewing now. I am useless at music and academic drafts, unless obvious acceptances or declines. I detest sports drafts where a person has to appear for a couple of seconds in a certain class of event to get an article. I can usually spot cruft and PR and paid editing at a thousand paces. The PR bit? Heck, I used to write marketing copy for a living! I can smell it! Pid editing starts as instinct.

Instead go going for volume I go for completeness. I follow pictures to Commons when I see them im a draft, and check whether they ought to be there. I look for sock puppetry. In short I do the things I find fun.

If the questioning of others starts to get to you you're welcome to stalk my reviews (etc). I just looked at my stats:

• Accepts: 1,011 (47.94%)
• Declines: 700 (33.19%)
• Comments: 398 (18.87%)

I guess I must be doing something right. I'll accept borderline drafts because the community can be a far better judge than I am.

You can check yours, mine, and anyone else's at https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/ and decide how you're doing. YOur stats are different from mine, and are perfectly acceptable, too. You must be doing something right, too. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Noah ^💬 16:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021

		Mary Wollstonecraft Award 2021
		On behalf of WP:WPWW, with appreciation for the women writer biographies you created during first quarter 2021. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 21:13:48, 2 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by USPatriot45

• USPatriot45 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jim Taliaferro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disagreeing with -noah-'s note: the first sentence clarifies the position the individual is already elected to.

USPatriot45 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@USPatriot45:. Sorry - I meant an office that would make him satisfy our notability guideline for politicians. Noah ^💬 21:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Michael gruenbaum page

Hello, Noah-

You recently rejected an article I submitted, “Michael Gruenbaum”, citing lack of notability.

I would like to try to fix it to satisfy Wikipedia’s requirements, because I really do feel this subject is quite notable.

As you saw, his book was reviewed (favorably) in the New York Times Book Review, he was interviewed in The Institute of Traffic Engineers magazine (the premiere organization of this type) about his career, and he did an interview on camera for a Fox News affiliate about his experience as a Holocaust survivor.

I understand that interviews don’t count towards notability for some reason, but below are some of the citations about him that I included which are not interviews. Do I need more?

"List of prisoners of Theresienstadt - Notable Survivors", Wikipedia, 2020-10-20, retrieved 2020-11-03

"ITE Journal - November 2020 - 20". www.nxtbook.com. Retrieved 2020-11-03.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2016/04/29/brookline-man-holocaust-memoir-translated-into-german/vKrX0wmPsJMXXA7ve6BQPM/story.html

https://libraries.mit.edu/news/jewish-music-history/6190/

Thanks very much for your assistance.

Placscrib (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Placscrib (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Just double checking that you have seen this, thanks Placscrib (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Noah -

Thanks very much for your detailed response. I think I understand better now what we need in there. So I've now added these 3 citations, all non-primary and substantial articles from established news outlets

https://www.csmonitor.com/Daily/2021/20210412/The-power-of-a-story-to-change-assumptions https://www.therolladailynews.com/article/20090730/NEWS/307309865 https://brookline.wickedlocal.com/news/20200415/brooklines-gruenbaum-holocaust-survivor-is-making-up-for-time-almost-lost-forever

And I replaced the last citation about the MIT donation with a lengthier, more substantial one, also from a well established source:

http://archive.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2011/08/04/holocaust_survivor_donating_reparations_to_mits_music_library/

Let me know if that will be sufficient.

Thanks again Placscrib (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor is asking for your help

Please will you visit The AFC Helpdesk where ADTN1210 wishes to discuss and receive assistance on Draft:List of celebrities influenced by Taylor Swift which you rejected, but did not give them a rationale for rejection.

I pinged you there as did they, because they need your assistance, please. It may be that you have ping notification turned off and did not notice it Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations for Ed Polgardy Submission

Hi Noah, could you please tell me which citations are not acceptable on my Ed Polgardy draft? I would like to know which ones I need to revise and why. Thanks! Ed Polgardy (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ed Polgardy:. You should probably remove all the references that don't specifically talk about you and cover you in detail, as of now you don't appear notable enough to warrant being the subject of an article. Coverage in a reliable source that would presume notability would be multiple articles about you (I assume you are Ed Polgardy based on the username) in something such as CBR. Noah ^💬 21:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I produced The Wretched, the #1 movie in America for six weeks straight in 2020. Does that not make me "notable"? Just because there aren't multiple articles about the producer of The Wretched, does that mean I'm not "notable"? Seriously? I'm mentioned in a number of these articles, but most of them tend to focus on the writer-directors. That's just the way the publicity works. I guess if you're the producer, and put the whole project together, it doesn't mean anything anymore. Is that what you're saying? I've changed a number of the citations to ones that mention me. Do they seem more acceptable to you? Ed Polgardy (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ed Polgardy a major challenge that you know from being the producer is that the other folk get all the credit. Most folk don't even know how hard a producer works, nor what they do.

Wikipedia has a very specific view of notability. It's encapsulated thus: "For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today." and this creates issues that you have just discovered.

I'm saying this blind, not having looked at your draft. I'll go and have a look in a moment. The fundamental thing is that it is goshdarned difficult write a new article at all, let alone one about one's self Fiddle Faddle 15:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ed Polgardy I have offered a substantial comment on the draft itself, one I know that you will be disappointed to read. I concur with -noah-'s review, but have used far more words to say so. I have not made a formal decline. Instead I have commented and suggested that you continue to search for useful references

You will also see that I have been to Wikimedia Commons and requested a deletion discussion on the picture, with rationale given there. Commons is a separate place from Wikipedia and has a very strict set of rules. Fiddle Faddle 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Colts Titans rivalry

Hello, -noah-

I understand why my article was not accepted, so I added another reliable source. My actual question is how can a page like "Eagles-Washington rivalry" get submitted with only one source that just has the scores of the games? When comparing this to my page I do have a source that has all the scores of the games, some that have information about the rivalry, and a lot of sources that show stats for particular games. So while my sources aren't as impressive as some of the other submitted rivalry pages, I would like to understand how a page with just one source like "Eagles-Washington rivalry" can get submitted.

MichaelPackBrewGuy (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello @MichaelPackBrewGuy:.

The Eagles-Washington rivalry was made in 2013, not vetted by experienced editors, and would have likely not passed the reviewing process had it been submitted. Database websites such as Sports Reference (used 7 times in your article) are generally not considered reliable.

Noah ^💬 20:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Submission for Draft page on Betsy Cohen -

Dear Noah, Thank you for your feedback regarding the DRAFT page for Betsy Cohen. I have addressed all of the comments and corrections left by yourself and other Wiki editors, and added all of the major media references to date with appropriate citations. All peacock terms have been removed so it is now in a neutral, formal, encyclopedic style--it now reads in a style that is very closely aligned with pages for similar individuals. Now that all the requested corrections have been made, is it possible for you or someone to approve the page so it goes live? Also, is there a way to update the page title to add a middle initial ("Z.")? There are many Betsy Cohen's in the world and whoever created this page title omitted the middle initial: ideally it would read Betsy Z. Cohen. I appreciate your assistance.Paula F Warren (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Paula F Warren:. The draft still reads as slightly promotional, parts of it as out of a PR piece. I can move the page title to add the middle initial. You can then resubmit the draft, and it will be reviewed at some point. Noah ^💬 17:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

thank you and new editing re Betsy Z. Cohen page

Dear Noah, I'm sorry that I could not figure out how to reply to your previous comment-please forgive me for creating a new section. Thank you for so quickly adding the middle initial "Z." to the draft page for Betsy Cohen. Based on your last reply, I substantially edited the text. Truly all that remains are hard facts, pared down to the barest elements, and all straight from the published references. Hopefully this will now pass muster for publication. Many thanks for your guidance, and hopeful approval. Best wishes,Paula F Warren (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Paula F Warren: The draft looks good to me. Noah ^💬 18:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Betsy Z. Cohen

I think you have missed a few things with your acceptance of this draft, not least of which is the PR and regurgitated press release nature of the references, all of whose immediate nature has been carefully concealed in some form of archive framework. The mug shot is also a likely copyvio and has been sent to a Commons deletion discussion. I have nominated the newly accepted article for AfD as Wikipedia:ADMASQ.

I have been careful not to offer a criticism of the acceptance at the discussion. I never do that. When one of my own acceptances is sent to AfD I reman steadfastly neutral in any discussion. The only justification I ever put in is a neutral "I chose to accept this borderline article thinking that the community would probably reach a better conclusion." if the acceptance was ''borderline''. I won't criticise you for choosing a different approach of you do.

However well we do our jobs at AFC all we can do is our best to accept those that we believe will survive a deletion discussion. This may, or it may not. Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've conducted a detailed analysis of the references and placed it on Draft talk:Betsy Z. Cohen. While you may disagree with aspects of my analysis, as a probationary reviewer the analysis per se will be of interest to you.

Cohen is now back in Draft Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping that you might engage with this, and have given you every opportunity to do so without putting you under any pressure. The acceptance of this draft at AFC was as if you had not even read the references. If you look at the analysis you will see that of the great swathe of them, only a couple were of any use whatsoever in verifying notability. In accepting it in the state it was in you provided the major contributing editor with a major headache. The fact that you appear not to have engaged with this drafts progress after your mistaken acceptance gives me concerns about your concentration when reviewing and dedication to accuracy. Primefac is AFC's guardian of reviewers, and I am giving them a courtesy ping so that they are aware of my concerns on the progress you are making.

Probationary reviewers are both expected to hit the ground running and at the same time are granted some leeway to make small errors. They are expected to avoid errors such as acceptance of drafts with wholly inappropriate referencing, or at least to ask for guidance, best received either directly from a chosen mentor, or by asking at the AFC Talk page for other eyes on a draft which is felt to be too difficult with their current skill level.

This matter is worthy of your attention and comments, please.

Be under no doubt, I want you to succeed. I think I speak for every AFC reviewer old and new, when I tell you that good and dedicated reviewers are very much needed and that we all want you to succeed. I have tried before to express concerns to you, and you have to an extent, acknowledged them. I understand how difficult it can be to admit errors such as the acceptance of this draft, but we only learn by admitting to and understanding previous errors. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of the above. I have zero issue with new AFC reviewers making mistakes, because this isn't an easy task. My main concern, which is evident in this thread and across your talk page, is that for the most part when you receive criticism or questions about your work, there is very little indication that you understand why that was the case. In multiple threads here you receive feedback on your reviewing or CSD tagging or what have you, and your reply is often little more than "got it, thanks". Normally this isn't a problem (if you've "got it" then that's good) but some of the same issues keep popping up (in particular, questionable accepts or declines based on sourcing issues) with either a minimal or no response from you. Until I know that you're actually taking in this feedback I have a hard time keeping your name on the AFCH list. However, in the spirit of good faith and continued learning, I am willing to wait until you reply to this before making any decisions. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I understand that I have made some mistakes when reviewing drafts. I will try to use the source assessment table and go through everything to see if it is a copyvio in the future. Noah ^💬 14:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am neither expecting nor recommending that you use the templates, though analysing references in the manner of the templates is expected of us all. What I meant by "engage with this" is simply that. For example, have I analysed them correctly? Do you disagree in any major manner? Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Thank you for approving my draft so quick and thanks for letting me know Material isn’t a reviewer. Could you review my other articles to that i made on my alt Draft:Liban Sultanate,Muzaffar Dynasty you really made my day thanks. Rashicy (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Unified mechanics theory

Please reconsider the submission of the new article Unified mechanics theory. The reasons are stated in the templates. Moreover, I found the wikiprojects "Board and table games" (?) and "Mathematics" not appropriate. It's physics (I would say on the WP:FRINGE level). --SimoneD89 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@SimoneD89: I took a look at the references while reviewing it and most of it seemed like physics/mathematical jargon so I wasn't sure whether it was a hoax or not. The "Board and table games" must have been a typo. I found it borderline notable as there have been books and academic papers written about it. Noah ^💬 22:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What I see from the given references is just one group of people, I guess they work together, that published in the last two years about this unified mechanics. These works have very few citations, therefore they don't show the notability of the subject. --SimoneD89 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Request on 00:19:32, 7 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 19musicman94

• 19musicman94 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Zane Smith (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, the article on Zane Smith was updated with reliable secondary sources since first being declined. Official press releases fron 2K Games and music source HipHopDX prove artist credibility.

19musicman94 (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @19musicman94: See my response on Draft talk:Zane Smith (musician). Noah ^💬 13:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Noah. This is in response to hip-hop artist Zane Smith's Wikipedia page which was you declined about two weeks ago. He has since been published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution both web and print this week. The article link has been added to his Wikipedia page. https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/mic-check-zane-smith-is-on-an-unconventional-path-to-rap-success/6QXN34A5ZFHNBO2XJ5WR5UCSAY/

Would this publication cross all three boxes? Also, is there a requirement on the amount of verified sources or will a couple do combining the new and previous sources/mentions?

Editor notifications

Hello, -noah-,

When you move an article from main space into draft space, could you notify the page creator? I believe there is even a template to communicate this in the top drop down menu, under the More tab. A message is better than an edit summary to tell a content creator what is going on. Thank you very much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Spread_(projective geometry)

Hi Noah, thank you for your review of this article. I have revised the introduction to provide more context about the subject to a more general audience, per your suggestion. I would appreciate a further review. If you feel my changes did not meet the spirit of what you're looking for, I'd like to engage further to figure out how to get the article where it needs to be. Thank you for your time and effort.

Hi @Jeremydover: Your draft looks good to me, I'm currently reading some of the references to see if it satisfies notability and it seems it does. Noah ^💬 20:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

My Draft Wiki page was Declined

Request for reason for declining my draft wiki page even after providing all References and Inline citations. How to improve that? I require help to know that what went wrong.

April 2021

Hey Noah revelry you accepted my draft article to be part of the English Wikipedia Draft: Mora kingdom. I improved it even more and another Admin declined it so I worked on it a bit more. Could you please review it again Cheers: Rashicy (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviews

Your contributions record appears to show that you have decided to step aside, for a while at least, from AFC reviews. It's good to have a break from time to time, though you are working very hard right now, too..

You have the makings of a diligent reviewer, though have had a propensity for making unusual decisions at a higher rate than most reviewers do. I hope you will consider returning to reviewing, perhaps more gently than previously. As an old hand at this game is there anything I can do to guide you when you restart reviewing? Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm still working on AfC reviewing. I've just been doing other tasks such as tagging drafts for speedy. Noah ^💬 18:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, Noah,

Since you are doing a lot of speedy deletion tagging, you might set up your Twinkle Preferences to maintain CSD and PROD logs (if you are also tagging articles for proposed deletion). You can see what mine looks like at User:Liz/CSD log. It can be useful to review it on occasion to see if a page you tagged for deletion has been recreated or if there might be any problems with your tagging. I mostly CSD tag empty categories and I can see if certain groups of categories are being emptied out-of-process or if a category is repeatedly being empty, tagged and then untagged. It can also be nice to have a visual reminder of the work you do. Not every page tagger maintains a log but I just thought I'd suggest it to you since you've been doing a lot of tagging recently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I just changed my settings. Noah ^💬 20:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And, by the way, I think you are being overly broad in tagging pages, especially drafts, as being "promotional". For example, Draft:Sam Ernie Tilley will never be an encyclopedic article. But it is not spam or advertising. It is not trying to sell anyone or anything. Please don't use this CSD criteria as a catch-all for deleting inappropriate pages, especially drafts where editors are given some leeway to develop articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony Samir (April 10)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anthony Samir and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Anthony Samir, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Article you previously declined.

Hello, I'm PushaWasha. I wanted to let you know that I have improved on an article you previously declined Draft:Khaligraph_Jones and it's ready to be reviewed. At your own free time you can check it out here Draft:Khaligraph_Jones

Thank you.

Sock puppet investigation

Dear Noah,

I hope that you are well. Please may you stop this Sockpuppet investigation into me. I moved the page about Denis Clarke Hall into the main article space. I hope that my edits haven't offended you. That would never be my intention.

I was going to create an article for Denis Clarke Hall and saw that there was already a draft article. Naturally, I moved the article into the mainspace.

Also, the copyright infringements on the article are obvious and have nothing to do with me. I have since removed it. It was already present for the draft article for Clarke Hall.

I hope that you will reconsider this action. Thank you. — Preceding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly246 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jolly246: In general an investigation once started runs to completion. Every editor may face such investiogations in their editing career here, perhaps more than once. One presents one's defence in a simple and matter of fact manner, and then ignores the process until the outcome unless asked direct questions, or one sees something incorrect. If the matter goes against one incorrectly one has the right to appeal. (talk page stalker) Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please check your edit summaries

"DevTools failed to load SourceMap: Could not load content for https://redwarn.toolforge.org/cdn/js/jquery.contextMenu.min.js.map: HTTP error: status code 404, net::ERR_HTTP_RESPONSE_CODE_FAILURE (via WP:JWB)" does not sound like an intentionally set edit summary. Please change it to something else much more defined, in case this wasn't your intention. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 18:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC):

Not sure why that happened, thanks for pointing that out. Noah ^💬 18:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Devin Purcell (musical artist) edit feedback

Hello! Thank you for your re-review of the page for Devin Purcell (musical artist) where you asked me whether he was in any news or won any awards to be declared notable and worthy for a page. I completely forgot to add his awards and news coverage and I will make sure to finish the article before requesting submission for Wikipedia.

AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Fabrice Jaumont

Thank you for your feedback. As requested, I selected 5 publications in English from major US outlets reference #26 Associated Press + picture reference #27 New York Times + picture reference #57 Huffington Post reference #60 Woman Around Town + picture reference #31 Psychology Today All other references mention the subject or discuss his books or work.--NathCharles14 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)