User talk:DoubleGrazing

Welcome to my talk page!

Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing!

Also take care of the following points:

If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page.
Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics.
Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ":"
Sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your message.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Avoid personal attacks, do not troll or use this page as a chat room.
Please, always assume good faith.
If the topic is something personal, please email me and leave {{ygm}} on my talk page.
And if you are impressed by my contributions, consider giving WikiLove.

⇒Start a new topic⇐

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35

Scam warning!

There is a scam underway, targeting editors who attempt to publish Wikipedia article(s); see WP:SCAM for more information. If you have been approached by someone offering to create, accept or otherwise help publish an article in exchange for a payment, please e-mail the details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. This may help others in a similar situation to avoid becoming victims of this vile scam.
PS: If that someone claims to be me, they emphatically are not!

If I declined your draft at AfC, and you came to ask me to re-review it, please don't (unless I expressly said you could) – I feel it's fairer to the other drafts that yours goes back to the pool... and probably also fairer to your draft that someone else reviews it next. (And if you just came to tell me you've made changes, that's great, but no need to inform me.)

If you still want to leave me a message about a draft or article, I'd appreciate if you could please link to the page in question, so I don't have to go hunting for it. Ta.

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Warning to all Wikipedians! The user DoubleGrazing is a grandmaster editor who does not respect the rules of wikipedia and makes false statements. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: thanks (I think). Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry... DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore it, for now (I think). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: BADHAN[edit]

Actually I have created this page named BADHAN from this reference https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%A8

And recently I am working as a volunteer of this organization. This is an one of the biggest humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh. I think you should reconsider this draft.

Regards Md. Muqtadir Fuad Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Md. Muqtadir Fuad: while the referencing and style of writing may be acceptable at bn.wiki, it isn't here on en.wiki. Each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project, and being accepted into one doesn't in any way guarantee acceptance into another version.

The draft can be reconsidered once you have addressed the decline reasons, and resubmitted it.

You must also disclose your conflict of interest. I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:25:50, 18 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by SurgeFire[edit]

SurgeFire (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Tømra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I was wondering about that aforementioned article; I've seem some.. heavy-handed posts here about not creating an article with a recent account, so, I apologize if that is an inconvenience. I was wondering about what the difference was between this drafted article and the other mentioned villages here in Selbu, so I could more appropriately match the other articles? Thank you in advance!

SurgeFire (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SurgeFire: you need to show that the subject is notable enough to justify an article; merely existing is not enough. Notability, in the case of populated places, is defined in WP:GEOLAND. That states that if the place has legal recognition of some sort, that is likely to make it notable, but we need evidence of such recognition. Alternatively, if you can provide multiple (3+) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, ie. reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, that would also establish notability. Your draft cites only a single source, and one which only provides weather details and forecast. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, understandable! I was wondering about the other articles of the villages, though, like Fossan, for example - which similarly also just uses that weather forecast as one source on the stub articles. I only just ask if there's a notable difference between the two on that front (out of curiosity, not out of dragging my feet to not list more sources, haha).

Definitely going to be looking into other sources for the draft, of course. Would this be a viable one? It was one I also referenced while drafting. SurgeFire (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SurgeFire: there can be many reasons for how those other articles came about. They may have been created by someone who had the necessary permission to publish directly without going through a review. Some may be so old as to predate the review process, and probably back then the referencing and notability requirements were less stringent. (There was a time in the early years of Wikipedia when anybody could write pretty much anything about a topic they knew something about, without worrying about niceties such as referencing...) This causes some friction nowadays when we do worry about referencing; we often get asked "why is my draft not accepted when there's a much worse article already published on a similar subject". Basically, the answer is that, for the reasons mentioned earlier, we don't assess new articles or drafts by comparing them to existing articles, many of which are known to have 'issues', but instead by referring to the various guidelines and policies which apply today. (If you do want to use existing articles as a model, you should only really look at once that have been rated as 'good', which is a sort of community seal-of-approval.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, I love the referencing bit... and no worries, I apologize if I do come off as the users who complain harder about draft acceptance correlating with other, less substantiated articles! I promise it was all just curiosity.

I think I've found my other two sources and I'll try to add onto that draft when I can. Sorry for getting in your hair about all this! Trying not to ask stupid questions or do stupid moves, you know... which, I understand things are taken very seriously here (for good reason) and I'm just trying to look as least bad as I can for a newbie, I suppose. Ha. SurgeFire (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SurgeFire: no problem at all, there really are no stupid questions, it's infinitely better to ask than not to ask. Happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO[edit]

Doncha like Indonesian? 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Draft:Miss Globe 2022[edit]

Hey DoubleGrazing, just a nudge that you've left this under review for a few days now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @TechnoSquirrel69, clean forgot! It was created by an obvious sock, and I was waiting for that to be confirmed so I could have it G5'd, but I guess SPIs are again taking a while. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might've been it, but wanted to check just in case. Thanks for the clarification! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: okay, I've now had this speedied (G4, as well as G5), so that's sorted while we await the SPI verdict. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalted[edit]

Hi, DG, how are you? I saw your condiment suggestion here of course when administering the last rites there, but didn't act on it – it seems to me that it's serving a faintly useful purpose as a sort of magnet. But please let me know if you disagree and I'll think about it again. Big thanks for all the great stuff you do, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: yeah, I was at two minds about even requesting speedy on this or the other sock creations, let alone asking for extra seasoning... maybe in hindsight I shouldn't have (after all, sock magnets can be ever so useful). Please feel free to do what you think is best, obvs, and thank you kindly for even running this by me. :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serenata Flowers wikipedia submission[edit]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I appreciate the help you have provided on the wikipedia article for Serenata Flowers thus far.

I appreciate that there is concern about the nature of the post being considered to read more like an advertisment, if you could please kindly provide details about the specific sections, I'd be happy to change these.

Regarding the sources, I understand you have concerns, but these are legitimate sources with information about the company, I am unsure what other sources I could utilise here, as when I review wikipedia articles on similar subjects they have similar cited sources? It would be really useful to understand which of the specific sources are causing the failing checks FerGuyMan (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FerGuyMan

Courtesy link: Draft:Serenata Flowers

Just to be clear, I declined this most recently because only one source had been added, being an interview, which contributes nothing in terms of notability; therefore by definition the earlier decline for notability reasons still stands.

The other sources are just routine business reporting, and TrustPilot is user-generated. The strongest of the lot is probably the ToM piece, but it doesn't really provide significant coverage of this business.

The reason why interviews, routine reporting, etc. do not count towards notability per WP:NCORP is that it is far too easy to get press releases, interviews, and just downright churnalism and 'sponsored content' into the media, much of the trade press being especially notorious in this respect. If we accepted all that, virtually any business that has been around more than a year or two would probably be notable, whereas we only want to publish articles on ones that genuinely are noteworthy and have therefore been published about independently and without enticement or input by the business.

Because there is no real case for notability, this draft is essentially just what the business wants to tell the world about itself, and that is what makes it inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). There are also some vaguely peacocky expressions like being "one of the first" or "established" or "most reviewed", but those can always be edited out later.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the speedy response and for such a detailed reply, really appreciate that.

I think your explanation is very clear in terms of removing 'peacocky' langugage and I would be very happy to remove these and edit them out - thanks for the help there in pointing this out specifically.

In regards to the notability in terms of press coverage, I also understand that there are some concerns here, however in terms of what exists out there this seems to be the majority of what covers Serenata Flowers. I would argue that as Serenata Flowers has been around for 20 years and is in the top-10 of online florists in terms of web traffic in the UK, and was at one stage the 3rd most visited online florist in the entire world that it would not fall into the example you share about any business that had existed for a year or two getting an article (but I completely understand the point you make), this brand and business is certainly significant, and it is certainly in the British public eye when it comes to gifting and flower delivery.

I will attempt to make a few more amends, removing the Trustpilot source, removing the peacocky words and seeing if there are more sources that are suitable and submit a draft for approval again.

Thanks again for taking the time out to help me, I appreciate it FerGuyMan (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FerGuyMan: I should perhaps clarify one more thing regarding notability. In the case of businesses (and in fact most subjects), we don't get to determine that the subject is 'clearly notable' because it is eg. well-known or the biggest or oldest of its kind, etc., and then go ahead and create an article on it using whatever sources happen to be available. Notability is depends on, and is exclusively demonstrated through sources, meaning either there are sufficient high-quality sources that establish notability, or there aren't, in which case notability cannot be presumed to exist. In saying that, I encourage you to find sources that unambiguously satisfy the WP:NCORP standard before resubmitting, rather than going with "the best you've got", because this draft has had so many reviews already that it is inevitably reaching the point where a reviewer might conclude that the subject is simply not notable enough and reject the draft outright. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for that note and information. When I look at the page Prestige Flowers, I note that there citations do not appear to meet notability requirements, and they include sponsored content links that I have been asked to, and have removed from my own submission. It would be good to get your thoughts on the above. FerGuyMan (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FerGuyMan: I agree, at least some of the sources in that article do not meet the WP:GNG standard. (Whether enough of them do, to establish notability, I don't know as I haven't looked at them in any detail.)

This is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, whereby the existence of problematic articles makes it's okay to create more articles with similar problems. This is clearly not sensible. There are inevitably any number of problems among the 6.8m+ articles in the English-language Wikipedia, but we should avoid adding any more. That is why we don't compare new drafts to existing articles, but rather assess them with reference to the currently-applicable guidelines and policies.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 62[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

IEEE and Haaretz now available
Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hey! I understand why you would have my article removed. After reviewing the draft, I see why it kinda looks like I am advertising the product. It was not my intent to promote the product (SnackleBox), but I will learn from this and do better in the future!

Thanks for your feedback!

Caden dand (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caden dand: the problem here is that not only is the draft promotional, the only source it cites is a Google search (which isn't actually a source, but rather a portal to possible sources), which brings up a number of resellers of this product, further emphasising the promotional nature of the whole thing. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leomabuku (23:43, 24 April 2024)[edit]

How do I add new information to wikipedia ie information about a business I own or about myself --Leomabuku (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]