User talk:Johannes Maximilian

Münster Hauptbahnhof

The update looks good, although why aren't you using the {{Citation}} template? Anyway, ramblings like this is probably not the best idea (save it as a Word file or post it somewhere else), because it still shows that you are not really getting the point of the scope of the topic ban being intentionally wide was to stop you from "clarifying" (read: wikilawyer) the scope in a very disruptive manner. But anyway, you are a smart and knowledgeable editor, so I have a challenge for you. I am thinking about going for my first GA, but I am not sure what to write about. If you have an uncontroversial subject that you want to write about, we can write it together and submit it for GAR. I think if you can accomplish an GA here uncontroversially, your next topic ban appeal (if that happens, I will probably be even willing to appeal for you) should go far more smoothly. What do you think? Alex Shih (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex, I am just not used to using the tl-template; in the German language Wikipedia, a similar template exists but using it is pretty useless since it just renders the text in the edit box unreadable and not many editors use the references tags correctly, so it has caused a bit of what you could call "annoyance"; I don't like using it, so I haven't even looked for a similar template here in the first place. But if editors here consider not using it undesirable, I guess I will start using it. Regarding the "nothing to see here"-page: It was a stupid idea to create that page in the first place; please go ahead and delete it. I appreciate that you consider me a smart and knowledgabe editor and I am happy to assist you with your first GA. I have created several good and featured articles for the German language Wikipedia (de:Mercedes-Benz OM 138, de:4 VD 14,5/12-1 SRW, de:Unimog 406, de:Unimog 411; also, I have improved the de:Dieselmotor article so it would eventually become a GA, but I haven't had the time to put effort into improving it further and it is stuck in the review (yellow wrench icon)). Please keep in mind that writing a GA can take up to several months. However, I have no idea what to write about in the English language Wikipedia. Maybe I seem like a knowledgable person, but, I guess all I know about is sort of related to engineering subjects. The German featured article Unimog 406 is a translation of an article I had initially written in English. Well, I guess another topic would be a much better option. To be honest, I have no clue what you use to write about since I never looked through your edits. I know a lot about internal combustion engines, Diesel engines in particular, German railway service; I can help with anything regarding German; I know how to acquire several books and I have a library in reach; as you know, I just finished the first draft of an article on air-blast injection, though, I don't really know where to start with a new GA. I have also seen several articles that might need an improvement; for instance, the section "Legacy" of the Rudolf Diesel article seems like 95 % original research. So, do you have any suggestions? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Diesel looks fascinating, I actually had no clue about the origin of the word diesel. I am going to watchlist the page and see if I can work on it in the coming weeks. Alex Shih (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viele Grusessen. I had a look at your en:Diesel article- and you are very brave to try (English humour- this is a double meaning- brave, and as a euphemism for foolish!). These articles are so important and so neglected and so difficult. I added multple maintenance tags to the history- then started to read the text. It will be improved by adding wlinks (wiki links- or hyperlinks). WP is supposed to be understood by a general educated reader- links back on basic terms are essential. There is a lot of work here. I can help a little- just contact me on my talk page or pop along to the London Meetup ClemRutter (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:ClemRutter, for your advice! When I was a child, I was taught many English idioms, and I am a very experienced German language Wikipedia editor ([1]). It's just the little irks and quirks that I encounter on English Wikipedia that make editing a bit difficult. I know that the articels are supposed to be understood by the general educated reader, but that term varies, depending on the country you live in. I was raised in Germany, but I now live in Austria and Hungary, and there are even huge differences between Austria and Germany, and these two countries share a lot of their culture. I was a bit concerned because in both Austria and Hungary, the Newton metre is a unit of both torque and work/energy. However, after reading the English article, it rather seems to me like it is understood a bit differently in English. And this made me ask for advice. This is not the first time I work on an article like the Diesel engine article; just take a look at the de:Dieselmotor article. I was both praised and criticised for overhauling it, but it ended up becoming the German equivalent of GA (Lesenswert). The maintenance tags made me take a closer look at the :en:Diesel engine article, and I am still working on it. I reckon the general problem there may be different ways of describing basically the same thing. In general, I want to add proper sources to the article, but that also forces me to remove sections that are not covered by these sources. Many things I encounter seem to be factually correct, but there is so much information weirdly put together, spread in many sections and blown up unnecessarily. The information on the injection system shouldn't be in the fuel section, for instance. Best regards, and once again, thank you for your friendly message, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post Scriptum: I had not taken a look at the article before composing my reply; as you might have realised, I am working through the Diesel engine aricle's sections from top to bottom; however, after fixing the 19th Century part of the history section, I noticed many questionable entries, in fact so many of them, that I still have to find a proper timeline in one of my books (and I know there is one, I have seen one before, I just need to find that book). There is no doubt that entries such as "company xyz brought the revolutionary product abc to market<ref>Poor citation</ref> have the nature of an advertisement, which is why they have to go. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air-blast injection

Hi. While doing new page patrol I saw you'd created an article at Air-blast injection. I am guessing from the all German sources and poking around that you translated it from one or more articles on German Wikipedia. While this is certainly allowed you might not be aware that the license still says you need to attribute where you got the text from. Since it seems to be from more than one article I did not attempt to note this on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barkeep49, the article is not a translation from one or more German articles, instead, I have re-written the entire article from scratch using the same sources I had already used for the corresponding article in German (I am also the main author of the German article). Since I am the author of both articles, the style might be similar. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. That explains the differences while being overall similar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Glad to see you back. There is a lot of work to do :-) Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Johannes Maximilian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identification questions

Are you able, please, to tell me in more detail what these photographs are of? Forty years ago I would simply have asked my father but these days ... alas. Typ Nr., Bj. (umgefaehr), Motor size/power (cc/PS) ... But I am more interested in what you (easily) CAN tell me than in a list of "?"s

If the question is not easy for you, please do not take too much time for it. But I hoped maybe a difficult question for me might be a very easy question for you. The only certain thing was/is if that I do not ask you, I will never know whether you are able (and willing) to help with this.

Thank you "im Voraus". Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles,

Indeed, it is not too difficult. The lorry is most likely a Mercedes-Benz L 311 or L 312, built from 1949-1961, has a 4.58 litre, straight-six, precombustion chamber engine, producing either 90 (before 1956) or 100 PS (1956 and later). This lorry was very common in Germany and known as the 90er-Mercedes. Pre-1955 models were named after their payload, respectively L 4500 (L 312) or L 3250 / L 3500 (L 311). The one you have taken a photo of looks like a "special model": It has a split windscreen and a double cab. As far as I know, these were made by third-party manufacturers, especially fire engines have a double cab and split windscreen.

The tractor is either a Hanomag R455 ATK or R460 ATK (the difference between these two models is a modification of the injection pump speed governor, otherwise they are exactly the same). The R455 ATK was built from 1957-1960, the R460 from 1960-1964. They are both heavy duty tractors with a Voith hydraulic clutch (Turbo clutch), hence the suffix ATK (A = air-filled tyres, TK = Turbokupplung). The engine is a 5.7 litre, straight-four, precombustion chamber engine, producing either 55 or 60 PS. Both 5 and 10-speed gearboxes were available.

I hope this is what you were looking for, best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I want to add your summaries to the image files - already have for the Hanomag. Please tell me if you object and I will of course remove them: but I think/hope you will not (object)! Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Of course I don't object, please go ahead and add my summaries to your photos. I searched the Daimler-Archive, and I found this press release: [2] Maybe this is of interest. Best wishes, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identification 2

Thank you again. Your reward(?) is that I have dug more deeply and found four more pictures about which I would welcome more details. Half of me says I should not upload pictures to wikipedia till I know (more or less) what they are of. But the other half of me knows that the best way to learn more is to upload them anyway and then ask for help. It often works with cars. Now also with tractors. As before, I am interested in what you can easily tell me. Please do not interrupt the day job to answer questions you cannot easily answer. But I am confident that for at least two of these you can easily give me details on engine size and power, model type etc. I am confident that you cannot know less about any of them than I do. Many thanks in anticipation of any details you will provide. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles, again, you are welcome. Childhood memories :-) The tractor is an earlier Porsche-Diesel Standard, maybe a Standard Star, it definitely has a longer wheelbase (with an "in between frame"), the front wheels are not original, the indicators are aftermarket parts, as well as the roll bar (and the flashing beacon "panic lights"). If I had to guess, I'd say it's a Standard Star 219, but I am not 100 % sure. The Standard Star 219 has a 1.75 litre, two-cylinder, swirl chamber Diesel engine, producing 30 PS. Unfortunately, I have no idea about the Latil. The grey tractor is a Pampa T01, mostly referred to as the Pampa, a legal Argentinian version of the Lanz Bulldog D1506, built in the 1950s under licence by Industrias Aeronáuticas y Mecánicas del Estado. It has a 10.3 litre Akroyd engine (hot bulb engine, two-stroke), producing either 55 or 60 PS. Increasing power output is really easy because these engines produce a ton of torque; it is very likely that the actual power output is much higher. The gearbox of the Pampa is a 3×2 speed gearbox, and it even has a reverse gear (early Lanz Bulldogs did not have a reverse gear because the two stroke engine does not have a fixed direction of rotation). I am sure that this Pampa was repainted, the original paint colour is orange. The blue lorry is a second generation Opel Blitz, built from 1952–1960. The second generation was rather an optical overhaul of the first generation, technically, the second generation Opel Blitz is pretty much still based on the original 1930 Opel Blitz, however, with an increased payload of 1750 kg (later 2000 kg). It has a 2.5 litre straight-six Otto engine (petrol engine) producing 58 PS. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. As before, I intend to copy or paraphrase your information as notes on the different image files on wiki-commons (unless you object). I did not expect that you would know much about the Latil. No one else does either! But if I don's ask .... Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go ahead. And maybe, the French tractor is a Latil Traulier. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your correction of my edits on Overhead valve engine. That looks better.72.0.146.42 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel engine

You've done very good work on this article. I've only had time for a cursory skimming through, but have noted a few things to start.

The lead section is overly detailed, and someone without background knowledge might be confused by some of the technical details. I don't think it's necessary to mention Rudolf Diesel in the lead (it seems out of place in the paragraph), and going into depth about where the fuel is injected, type of air/fuel mixture, diffusion flame, etc. should be left to the section on operating principle. The in-depth technical details disrupt the flow of the prose as well, and partially repeat themselves in a couple places.

The first sentence under "The first diesel engine" doesn't quite make sense to me - it seems like there's missing background information (who is Krupp, what is the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg, how "could" he convince them?). There's other grammatical issues but nothing else major that I've noticed so far.

The "Types" section is difficult, in my opinion. Much of that might be better described in prose. It may be better to explain how each of those classifications pertains to an engine application (passenger car, commercial truck, tractor, ship, etc.) rather than the opposite. Power outputs and bore sizes alone mean little to the average reader, but "Diesels used in passenger cars are typically..." provides greater context.

Is capitalizing "Diesel" when referring to the engine (as opposed to its inventor) a British English variation? I normally don't see it capitalized.

The article appears to be complete and well-referenced, with a logical structure. It's certainly on the cusp of B-class if not already there and shouldn't take too much additional work to make it a Good Article. Consider requesting a WP:Peer review for it to get broader input from editors outside the automotive subject area.

Again, good work. --Sable232 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sable232, thank you for your message. I reckon that either explaining how the Diesel engine works in just a few sentences, or summing up major points of it is the key in this case. I have chosen the former. I agree that it is not very easy to understand, but on the other hand, I believe that it is required to explain it in that detail. There is a lot of confusion regarding the Diesel engine, and simply referring to it as a "compression ignition engine" is not very precise – the Diesel engine is a CI engine, but not all CI engines are Diesel engines. Therefore, explaining what a Diesel engine is in that amount of detail seems reasonable to me – but I understand your concerns and I wish it was possible to avoid that wall of text. Now, the latter, summing up the major points, is an alternative, but I fear that it does not quite express what I'd like to see in the lead section.

The section "The first Diesel engine" was in fact difficult to understand, I have tried to fix it. Krupp is a German steel producer, and the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg was an Augsburg machine factory; they are now known as MAN. I know that my grammar is not perfect; I make a lot of punctuation errors, for instance.

When I started overhauling the article, I figured quickly that the article had a good structure with minor flaws; the "types" and "applications" sections are very similar, thus I considered merging them, but I have not done that yet. Either of the two is a fifth wheel. So I will see what I can do about it.

Capitalising Diesel in Diesel engine seems to be correct. After all, it makes sense, as names always begin with a majuscule. I have seen it capitalised in several (English language) books.

Regarding the books: As you have seen, I have used German language literature. Most of the German books are also available in English, however, there is a notable "translation delay", and thus I have decided to use the German editions – they are more up to date. Thank you and best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much decimated the Diesel history portion of the page. That title is Diesel engine not Diesel the man. You completely refuse to admit there were others before Diesel who contributed greatly to this engine. I have no idea why you refuse to familiarize yourself with the history? Are you so pompous that you think you already know everything there is to know on the subject? Or are you just a hard headed patriot who believes no one but the Germans invented the internal combustion engine? You seem reasonably smart so I imagine you could take a few minutes and see your errors. Imotorhead64 (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johannes Maximilian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hereby, I am requesting an IP-Block exemption. Currently, I am able to edit Wikipedia from an IP address that seems to have been blocked globally, only. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 9:56 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

IPBE given until 23 November 2019, when the current range block in effect is set to expire (per evidence provided by user via email) N.J.A. | talk 15:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email for me to consider. N.J.A. | talk 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. To summarize my email response: this account is not affected by an auto block. IPBE therefore is unneccessary and you can edit without issue currently. The IP you gave is part of a range block and unfortunately an individual IP cannot be exempted. I mentioned discussing with the blocking admin as an option, but noted that it would unlikely result in a change to the range block as it seems to be proper to prevent abuse. I also mentioned considering legitimate use of another account to edit from. I hope this addresses most of the issues. N.J.A. | talk 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for reviewing my sandbox, and thanks for your changes! I would ask if you have a special suggestion for me or something else to improve it, i would highly appreciate it! Best regards, Enivak (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The editor looks for areas where drama and friction occur"

I don't know if you were aware, but the remark you agreed with here was not based on a careful and sober assessment of Andy's contributions. The editor has been hounding me for the last few months, and only showed up where and when he did to harass me, so saying you "agree" is not helpful. I don't know if I have ever interacted with you before: I'm assuming this was a good-faith misunderstanding on your part, and you were there purely to compliment Andy, but if that is the case it might be a good idea to do so in a different manner than you have. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid-ass inferences

Johannes, I saw your conversation on Charles01's talkpage but I have been stuck in those webs before so I thought I'd respond here. As used in your example, "stupid-ass" in American English is indeed just an adjective, like "blöder". Here is a very unclear explanation and here's a few more. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That helped me a lot. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me here if I can help over in the German wikispace. My German is limited but I did win a Schiedsgericht over there once... Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I very much appreciate that! Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unimog identification questions

Your talk page reminds me of a couple of questions that have been tickling away at the back of my mind...

Might I ask for a more comprehensive definition for these two than I have yet achieved, please? (We don't get too many Unimogs here in England.) Many thanks im Voraus. And best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles! The green one is very likely a 1974 Unimog 406 (type 406.121, model U 84) (it doesn't have the upgraded step), however, due to many aftermarket modifications, I cannot tell for sure without inspecting that vehicle in person, but I am pretty sure. What I can say for sure that it is a post 1970 406 (rear windows) and a pre 1979 406 (grille). The engine used in the 406 is a 5.7 litre OM 353 diesel engine (62 kW). The darker, green-greyish one is a an Unimog 404 (type 404.114, model U 82), but I cannot say when it was made, since the annual changes were very minimal with the 404 series, and Daimler-Benz made more than 50,000 units of the type 404.114. It should have a 2.2 litre M 180 engine (60 kW). But again, I cannot tell for sure, and there were some exceptions. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer remember if I thanked you for this before. If I didn't - even if I did - thank you. Best wishes. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Johannes Maximilian, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder re Unimog 435

@Johannes Maximilian: Re Unimog 435: Please remember that in English one uses a decimal period or point, not a comma. Peter Horn User talk 18:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, I am well aware of this, however, I often confuse these things. With newer articles of mine, you are very likely to not encounter any of these mistakes (since I check for these things several times). Please note that the Unimog article is more than four years old. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electrohydraulic manual transmission

Hello Johannes,

I'm just messaging to inquire if you could help out and edit the Electrohydraulic manual transmission article, particularly with descriptive information... From 1292simon's talk page, it seems like you have a lot of useful knowledge and expertise in the internal mechanical operating systems of automotive transmissions, especially the electrical and hydraulic components, and systems. 1292simon and I are currently editing and expanding the Electrohydraulic manual transmission page, just to improve it and make it better, by elaborating and adding more description and factual information and hard facts to it. Your knowledge of the mechanical and electric components of the transmissions would be very useful in the article! If you have any other useful or factual information relevant to this article, then please don't hesitate to add it. Please go ahead and add any good information you have, it would be much appreciated and very valued! From the chat page, you seem very knowledgable in this specific field and area. Thanks for helping. Kind Regards, Davism0703 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davism0703, I have got a book on transmissions, gearboxes etc. that I can use a source, I will have a look at it in the upcoming days. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Johannes, that sounds fantastic! A good book on transmissions and gearboxes would be a great source of information, we really need it for this article! Thank you for helping, your help is much appreciated. Davism0703 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johannes. How are you doing? I hope you are going well. I'm just touching base here about the highly useful information you had in your book, about Automated manual transmissions. That information would still be a great addition to the article. Just wondering if you're still thinking about adding it. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Davism0703 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davism0703, I apologise for not replying in detail sooner, but I've been busy recently. I have now composed a long reply and put it onto Talk:Automated manual transmission. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Corps" - singular or plural

Hi, Johannes, I guess it depends. In English, "corps" is a collective noun, that is true. But in our usage, it is conjugated in the singular, eg, "The Marine Corps is a division of the United States Navy". British usage might apply the plural, I suppose. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we Brits also use singular https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/corps-of-royal-engineers/ Chidgk1 (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Carrera GT

Hi, could you please explain the reason for your edit. Yours sincerely.--AutomobilePassion (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AutomobilePassion, you had already attempted to change the infobox picture last December – back then, this was opposed by several editors, and consensus was not to use your picture. Waiting for 11 months and doing the exact same thing (putting the picture back into the infobox) with the exact same edit comment ("better angle", which by the way has already met at least one editor's disapproval) is not how Wikipedia edits are supposed to be made. I'm assuming this was a good faith edit of yours (I have also made similar edits by accident because I had forgot about the consensus), but please be more careful. You should also be careful with your pictures on Commons – apparently, you have only uploaded pictures taken by French photographer Alexandre Prévot, and you have chosen the CC-BY-SA 2.0 licence for most of these pics. However, these pictures are currently not published under this licence. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Car photos etc

Hi Johnny, I have been taking your comments to heart and am trying to get a touch more of the frontal aspect of the car in my photos. Saw a lovely Lancia the other day (about as common as seeing a Hupmobile in Austria, I think) but a truck blocked me from where I would have liked to stand. I was forced to take one shot which I think is too much from the side, and one which has too much front in it. My question is, which is better? It would be nice for me to have a consensus on this matter as I mainly photograph to depict the car as clearly and as usefully as possible.

Too much front?
Too much side.

Anyhow, just wanted you to know that even in 2020 humans can still listen, even on the internet! Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Choppers, I am currently rather busy in real life, so I don't have too much time; I like the picture that you've labelled "too much front" better. I'm only seeing this on my phone though, and my personal taste is just what I think is best (and I'm just one out of many Wikipedians). I personally think that it's difficult to take a car picture with a full format 35 mm camera with a 50 mm lens from where you stood; I find it much easier to either step back a bit, or just use a different lens. I like the 70–210 mm lens the most for my 35 mm camera, at around 85 mm it gives decent results (I use the stock canon lens); I also have a cheap 28-70 mm wide angle lens, and well, sometimes it's fine, but I prefer the 70-210 nonetheless. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely car and a nice shade of green which I don't remember from when they actually made them. Your existing and otherwise rather good picture of a white Fulvia Coupe suffers from having a background that is ... um ... also more or less white. For what it's worth, I would prefer this picture if you had stood half way between the two places where you stood, but one really only sees that when one gets home and sees what picture(s) one ended up with. And I would prefer it if you had bent down a little more, say to about 1,2 - 1,5 m., so as to reduce the brutal diagonal slope of the botton/side - especially in the shot which is more of a side shot. But that's only if you ask me. Which I appreciate you didn't. Sorry. Be well, both, anyway. Charles01 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

„I would prefer this picture if you had stood half way between the two places where you stood“ → I agree with that. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on positioning, but that's where the UPS truck was parked though... I was hugging the truck from either side to get even this close to my preferred location! As for the white Fulvia I photographed, it is a Series I so they might both be useful. Anyhow, I will definitely show more front from now on. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Single-cylinder engines

A tag has been placed on Category:Single-cylinder engines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice: your copy-pasted text message reads "This has been done (…) because the category has been empty for seven days or more (…)". Seven days, not seven times three hours. Please go ahead and do something useful. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johannes Maximilian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Despite being in the global IP block exempt user group, I have been caught by an IP block here on English Wikipedia. I am hereby kindly requesting an unblock. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have given you IP block exemption for a year. PhilKnight (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Log (somehow cannot be linked withing the unblock request): [3]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Diesel

Why are you reverting my edits on the page Rudolf Diesel. I am simply altering the page to agree with the quoted source? The Proffesor (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Johannes Maximilian:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Two-stroke diesel engine

Just a reminder that if you revert my edit on aero engines and fuels three times, you will violate the Three-Revert Rule and your account may be sanctioned. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls-Royce Phantom VIII

I see that you have accused me of advertising in Wikipedia. While you see only that let me tell you what I have done. I have

Added a section about the Phantom VIII EWB which was apparently a passing mention in the last edit
Added an overview section mentioning what the car is
Added a tuners section for extra detailing

But you have undone them all just for the mere childish reason of "advertising"

If you see any advertising in this article remove it manually without stripping the whole article down.

But if you have wrongly identified mentioning of luxury features such as the Starlight headliner as advertising, you are very much mistaken as they are the factors which uniquely define this car.

So I ask you not to engage in disruptive editing by undoing an editor's hard work for stupid reasons but think wisely and delete the parts which have faults in them.

Thank you

Draft:Arnergy

Hello, Johannes. Hope you're doing great. I need a little help from you and I would be very thankful for that. I've trimmed the article and have removed all the clutter and promotional tone of article in a bid to make it neutral. I am happy if you can further make it neutral by making any kind of changes that make it acceptable. I have re-submitted the article (Draft:Arnergy) and will be waiting for your review. Thanks. Fernande Bonhomme (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johannes, hope you're well. I have updated the draft as per your comments and have removed YouTube as a source. Pardon me if I missed anything. Feel free to fix the issues as you deem fit. I will be waiting for your review. Kind regards, Fernande Bonhomme (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BMW M20 specifications table

Hello Johannes. Sorry for hassling you, I was just wondering if you could comment on the changes proposed here: Talk:BMW_M20#Horsepower_units,_specs_table please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanebbe

Now that you received a lot of support for your complaint regarding Vanebbe, what happens next? Sedimentary (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will see whether this account gets blocked indefinitely. If so, I will look through the articles created with this account and see which good material I can rescue. The best thing will be proposing all nonsense articles for deletion using the WP:CSD G5 criterion after the account has been blocked. I mean, you can tell how awful the Autocar related articles were – trust me, the IFA-related articles were not any better… Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like action was taken. Thanks for your initiative! Sedimentary (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with your SPI filings?

Hi, Johannes! :) Just so you know, both of your filings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zerolandteam385 omitted the "other users" and clerk/CU/admin sections, and also omitted the very important {{SPI case status}} template, which led to them not being listed at WP:SPI. (I happened to notice because I have the page watchlisted, otherwise they might have sat there for even longer.) Can I ask how you're putting your filings together? If you're doing it by hand, it's much easier (and much less likely to result in errors) if you use the form provided at WP:SPI or if you use Twinkle. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamzin, I have actually done it by hand, I must have overlooked the SPI case status template. Thank you for letting me know! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 05:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi

@Johannes Maximilian: :

Hello dear user. Amir Kaya is an Iranian-born entrepreneur and businessman working in Turkey and the UAE. More than 400 other biographical articles are available. thank you. M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maximilian1985, if more than 400 biographical articles are available, then please cite them. Remember that, the articles need to provide the information that you want to put into the draft. Wikipedia is a reproduction of reliable sources. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Maximilian: :ok.I will fix it in the next 48 hours. I will let you know. Thanks . M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to eat. Good luck, and best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Maximilian: : Hello. I'm happy to confirm this page. I have registered 36 out of 400 sources.emir kaya page . Please check and thank you.M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maximilian1985, please don't just place all these sources in the article – you need to provide the information from the sources in the article. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Maximilian: : I am translating two more articles. I recorded the details in the article. I hope the article is approved.Draft:Emir Kaya. M.EE.E.JK.U (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maximilian1985, please note that, the sources that you add need to be reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject. I randomly clicked on two references, and they both happend to be not independent of the subject. Surprisingly, one source indicated that Emir Kaya is not Turkish. There is definitely some work that still needs to be done. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Ilese

Hello @Johannes Maximilian:, I moved the citations to the relevant parts of the Draft:Salem_Ilese article draft, as to show the information they are backing up. Thank you for pointing that out. I also included a new citation for the RIAA certified gold status. I appreciate your input. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment @Johannes Maximilian: in relation to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Salem Ilese has a new comment

I responded to your question about notability. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Why did you declineDraft:Sachin Gupta (academic) ? -- he meets two of the quick-pass factors in WP:PROF --- Named profesorship ata major univesity an editor in chief of a major journal. I remind you that WP:PROF is analternative to the GNG, not a special case of it like the othe special notability guidelines.

I have accepted it. � DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG! I agree that WP:PROF permits an article on Gupta. However, it does't mean that an article on him must be created. In its current state, it is impossible to verify the article's claims due to a lack of sufficient reliable secondary sources. I know that WP:PROF permits using primary sources, but, Wikipedia has WP:V, and WP:NPOV policies, and the article's creator Applus2021 has been blocked indefinitely for writing non-neutral COI articles. Therefore, I believe that it is warranted to doubt that the article is written from a neutral point of view. This problem, however, is easily fixable by citing additional reliable, secondary sources, which is why I have explicitly asked for these soruces to be added. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the facts of his career is his official university page and CV. There was a link to the page, but not displayed clearly -- I clarified both.Tho not independent , they're RSs for the purpose. the link for the publications is themselves; the journals they are published in are reelable sources. The citation figure is from Google Scholar.

I agree the article needed some work,; tho it would not have failed afd even in the form you declined. Some people say we should accept them in cases like that, but my practice is of course not to accept them without doing a basic fix to show the notability more clearly.I don't want an article I accept to be even challenged.

Part of the problem is our inadequately specific notices. I think you do indeed understand the guidelines--the problem, as often at WP, is how to communicate them. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mohammad Khan Zand

Hi. Thank you for your comment on Draft:Mohammad Khan Zand

Unfortunately, Mohammad Khan Zand born/passed away date is not clear in historical sources. even in his Persian(Farsi) Wikipedia article. Kidsonthemoon (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Maria Gayoso

Hi,

Thanks for your review on my draft of Ana Maria Gayoso I've collected a lot of external sources to support the importance of creating a page for her. I added a summary as you requested, several sections, and tried to format the references. There is still a few references where Gayoso is the first author, but as she is a scientist it is also sound to cite her work. I hope I have brought satisfactory answers ans I'm currently working on having her picture in creative commons. Thanks Flora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamudauw (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Nordic Rheology Society

Hi Johannes, thank you very much for reviewing my draft of the Draft:Nordic Rheology Society (NRS) Wikipedia article and providing valuable comments. I have now created a link from Anne-Marie Hermansson [sv]'s Wikipedia page to the NRS Wikipedia article to further demonstrate the relevance of this submission. I was also wondering if there is any other way to improve the quality of the submission, especially concerning the provided references. Already during the previous revision round, I added a couple of references to independent sources of information. However, I was wondering if you think that it would be beneficial to remove some of the references to the NRS website to increase the relative share of independent, secondary sources of information in the list of references? I am also happy to hear any other suggestions that you may have to improve the quality of my submission. Many thanks for your time and effort, much appreciated!

FinOlmi (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FinOlmi – just in case you haven't seen it yet – Wikipedia requires paid contribution disclosure (see WP:PAID). I suppose you mean this by "adding a couple of references to independent sources of information". Well, the nrs.blob.core.windows.net source with Kádár as its author is not independent (even though it's a scientific paper). chalmers.se is an NRS press release, so it's also not independent. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes, many thanks for your prompt reply! I fully understand that the quality of references is a critical point here. With regard to Ref. 5, Roland Kádár was not the President (or even a board member) of the NRS at the time of the publication of this article. And with regard to Ref. 1, as far as I know, this news article was not a press release of the NRS, but it was written by the Communications department of Chalmers. Considering these facts, I do not think that these references should be considered inadequate for this Wikipedia submission. If I compare my submission to other Wikipedia articles in this field (Society of Rheology, British Society of Rheology, Journal of Rheology), I do not see any significant difference in the quality/independence of the references.

I am not getting paid for writing this Wikipedia article, but I am affiliated with the Society (I am the current secretary of the NRS). This is probably something that I should disclose when submitting the article for review. As I am writing my first Wikipedia article, can you please instruct me where I can disclose this information?

Many thanks for your kind help and advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinOlmi (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:FinOlmi, you can just write that on your user page (click on the red link of your own name). Simply add a note that reads something like this: "In accordance with the [[:wmf:Terms_of_Use/en#paid-contrib-disclosure|Terms of Use]], I hereby disclose that I am affiliated with the NRS and write on their behalf". Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Johannes Maximilian, I added the statement about the affiliation with the NRS on my user page. I am also wondering if there is still something that I could do to improve the quality of the Draft:Nordic Rheology Society (NRS) submission. The article draft features a decent number of references, and some of them are definitely independent sources of information as I explained earlier. If I compare this submission to the Wikipedia articles of other similar professional organizations, I do not see significant differences in the way that they have been written or what type of references they use. However, can you please let me know if you have any further suggestions on how to improve this submission before I submit it for re-evaluation? Many thanks for your kind help and support! FinOlmi (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FinOlmi! An easy improvement would be citing sources that are not related to or affiliated with the NRS. It is quite apparent that NRS.org sources are indeed closely related to or affiliated with the NRS. Now, some of the sources may be closely related with the NRS (for instance if you wish to add a reference for something very much undebatable) – it's just that most of the sources shan't be NRS-related. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Johannes Maximilian, many thanks for your advice and patience in helping me! I will try to find additional references that are not directly affiliated with the NRS. Meanwhile, do you think that it would also be helpful to remove some of the references to the NRS website? There are currently quite a few of those references, and I think that the quality of the Wikipedia article would not suffer too much even if some of them get deleted. Then a relatively larger share of the references would be independent of NRS-related sources. Thanks again for your help User:Johannes Maximilian! --FinOlmi (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is a sufficient number of WP:SIRS-compliant references, additional xxRx-compliant (i.e. reliable, but neither secondary, nor independent, nor significant) sources may be added for information that is both not debatable, and significant on its own. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Johannes Maximilian, I have now added a few secondary, independent references to the "History" and "Conferences and publications" sections of Draft:Nordic Rheology Society. Can you please check if the article is okay now, or if you have further comments/suggestions? Many thanks! FinOlmi (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:3D stop motion game

hello my draft just got rejected and i do not understand because one of wikipedia volunteer told me: Hi 124.52.60.213 unfortunately there is a backlog and some are waiting a long time, or it could be a short time. To be fair to all submitters I don't review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random. There are currency about 100 active reviewers on a weekly basis. You could ask at an interested project such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

draft address:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:3D_stop_motion_game

Hi! What rejection basically means is that the topic is not suited for inclusion within Wikipedia. In your particular case that is because the topic "3D stop motion game" is not covered in any sources. A Google search yields a single(!) result. It is warranted to believe that you have made up the term; but Wikipedia is not for introducing or promoting one's own terms, products, beliefs, etc. – Wikipedia is a "retelling" of existing sources, which means that the contents of existing sources are copied. Unless reliable secondary sources on a topic exist, it cannot have a Wikipedia article. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, Johannes, you did it right. There was indeed a good reason for saying reject, rather than just decline: it was submitted multiple times, not just without improvement, but making the promotionalism even more evident. There are 2 even more definitive alternatives available if needed: MfD, and G11 speedy. If it's resubmitted,I think MfD would be the best choice. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini

Hi, I read the message you sent me about Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini and I have made the necessary changes. Check now if it's okay. Good day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonna Angelina (talk • contribs) 11:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:We Rave You

Hello, May I know the reason you declined my draft please? you didnt explain and it seems just a duplicated decline.. please explain whats read more like an advertisement in you opnion because I checked it all and dont see what and I want to get this draft approved. Thank you, --Genken21 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Genken21! The first thing that immediately hits an AfC reviewer in the eye is the wording. The third sentence in the lead section reads "the site attracts" and "in excess of 1 million". Next up is the History section, which doesn't really contain any information on the history of We Rave You except that it was founded by Yotam Dov somewhere in Israel. Instead, the History section promotes the magazine by expressing which artists it features, which sections it has, and so on, and so forth. Then, the article puts way too much emphasis on expressing who We Rave You's target audience are. Sadly, there isn't really any useful content that could be supported by all of what the draft currently contains. I have also checked the sources for WP:SIRS, and they virtually all fail – so that doesn't help either. I suggest you add information from WP:SIRS-compliant sources to the draft. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I will edit and before resubmitting will show you. --Genken21 (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I did some edits based on what you wrote and according to similar articles. Can you please advise what more if any..? --Genken21 (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely an improvement! However, I'd still like to see some more WP:SIRS-compliant sources. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johanne, How are you? Im happy you found it an improvement! thats first. As for my sources, I would love to run this down with you for a sec, I read all as well as looked at other magazines on wiki, and I think maybe a second look will help alongside an explanition...

For exampel, the website megatickets is in Hebrew but this is a dedicated article on we rave you, not paid or a form of PR. Also, the website anchor id for a radio station and again its on the magazine. Muckrack also is big and on we rave you and Edmhousenetwork is very very big and well know. I didnt place any PR articles or websites and I would love a second look because I placen many sources and I choose the big ones (again, after researching other magaines wiki pages). Please help me in making this wiki worthy. Thank you, Genken21 (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Genken21! I have briefly looked through the first ten references in the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't look too good I reckon: The references are either unreliable (1), or not independent (2, 3, 5, 7, 9), or not about WRY (6, 8, 10). The fourth source could be good, however, the namedropping is quite suspicious; I will overlook that for now. What do you think are the best three sources in the draft? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Articles, the best 3 are megatickets which is big in Israel and the article is all about WRY, elitedaily which publish the WRY and it the indsrty thats hugh, and 1001tracklists which shows the tracklists overview of WRY. Please also look at other magazine's articles.. Also, it seems that something is not right since the magazine is very well known and has so many views and downloads, can you please explain why its not worthy? --Genken21 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Genken21, as I have said, Megatickets might be a good source, and I am pretending it is one, for now. The other sources (1001 tracklists and elitedaily) have either nothing to do with the subject, or don't describe it. The elitedaily article is about Avicii, and the 1001 tracklists source contains no descriptive words. Here's a little thought experiment: "John Doe, the editor of 1001 tracklists writes the following about WRY: …". What would he write? At least I don't see any text there, maybe you do? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi Johannes Maximilian, could you tell me what I need to change so that the draft on Salvatore Ambrosini becomes an article? Nonna Angelina (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nonna Angelina, your draft has to be accepted before it can become an article – an AfC reviewer then moves it into the article name space for you. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Ambrosini

Hello, Johannes Maximilian,

If you move an article from main space to Draft space, please tag the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2. It helps admins who patrol speedy deletion categories so they see the page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, I usually do that – it's just that I have forgot it somehow (it's been late I reckon). Thank you for the kind reminder though! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Haren Gandhi Research and Innovation Award

Hello, Johannes Maximilian. Thank you for your feedback on my draft, I would like to get your opinion, if you would suggest adding the draft page about the award to the main page of Dr. Haren S. Gandhi. Thank you --Sarouk7 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise against that. Instead, I recommend that you add sources independent of the subject – that would drastiacally improve your draft. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarouk7, actually, as a more experienced reviewer, let me advise you that the first thing you need to do is to make it clear that the context is an award by Ford Motor Company to its own technical staff, not to the general public (see your ref 9.). The next is, indeed, to look for refs in the technical press to the award. If you cannot find them, you could add a paragraph on it and the award to the article on Haren Gandhi--that's common practice on WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini

Hi Johannes Maximilian! Thank you for your feedback on my draft. As you suggested, I entered another official citation and requested review

--Nonna Angelina — Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johannes Maximilian,

On this draft, the page creator blanked the page and you reverted them? A page creator blanking a page is a way of saying they would like the page deleted, I can't figure out why you would revert their request to delete this page. I have gone ahead and honored their request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you told them here that only AFC reviewers can move pages from Draft space to main space? That isn't true at all. It's not even mandatory for an editor to submit a draft to AFC, they can move pages to main space immediately. It is recommended that new editors make use of AFC and pay attention to messages from AFC reviewers but it is by no means a requirement. Please do not give misleading advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an excellent understanding of the English language – I am convinced that you know the difference between only AfC reviewers should move pages from the draft space to the main space and only AfC reviewers can move pages from the draft space to the main space. As far as I'm concerned, AfC is also the only accepted way for "paid" (id est WP:PAID) editors to create new articles. I'd argue that it's against consensus if any such editors evade AfC by moving articles from the draft space to the main space – which is why I told this now blocked (and obviously WP:PAID) editor that only AfC reviewers should move articles to the main space. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global state of the ocean

I do not understand your comments on this draft. "Current state of the ocean" doesn't mean ocean current but the present situation or present -day problems about the ocean as distinct from historical or future. And a discussion of the effects of global warming is not CRYSTAL.

The problem is not the article , but just the title--the article is actually about the effect of global warming on sharks . I have changed it to Draft:Effect of Global warming on sharks.

Please use decline, not reject , for cases where there's an apparent problem with context. And if you don't understand the article, let someone else review it. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "current state" means, I am not that ignorant, and you don't have to explain it. The problem with a "current state" is that it is occurring whenever you are reading about it. However, this is Wikipedia – an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias cannot describe any such states by definition: They require a defined time range that is a proper subset of a defined time superset. The current state (id est 29 December 2021, 15:31) of the Ocean will not be the same as the state of the Ocean in 100 years. However, the article remains the same, and keeps implying that it describes the current state – the 29 December 2021 current state of the Ocean though will not be the 29 December 2121 current state of the Ocean. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:16:53, 3 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by AshwiniHarsha

AshwiniHarsha (talk · contribs)
- Draft:B.S Sannaiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been editing this article since a long time and many of the references that i have made are from local kannada news papers and also the links like book brahma have published the information in local kannada language. and every time, looking at the profile of the reviewer, i dont think they understand kannada language and they keep rejecting with references or citations as issue.

there is one page on Kamala hampana who did similar work in the same field and the referneces that i have provided are also similar and lot better. i dont understand why they keep rejecting. Please assign someone who understands kannada as a launguage and the kannada literature so that they can really understand what is mentioned in those reference links

AshwiniHarsha (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ashwini Harasha! The problem that I figured your draft had was a lack of references in the "Early days" section. This particular section describes several aspects of Sannaiah's life and thus needs very reliable sources – on Wikipedia, we don't want to spread false information about dead or living persons. I also noted some things that strike me as odd: One source says he was born in 1926 (article: 1928), and the article also says that he is a writer (I suppose he died?). The overall grammar needs improving as well. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini - Thanks Johannes. I have corrected the grammer with present and past and also i requested the Book brahma site also to update the birth dates with right information and they have done it . they also updated the death information since it was recent event in 2021 . I also added the reference in early days section. Thanks for the details on review which helped to correct inconsistency with different sites

So you are saying that the Book brahma site is a user-generated source? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why spread misinformation?

What is the purpose of editing on the wiki page if you won’t take the time or effort to learn about the subject in which you were writing? You relentlessly erased my edits and put your miss information back in their place you are 100% wrong and you won’t take the time or effort to learn about why you’re wrong this is very frustrating! I’m not sure if you’re stupid or if you’re just hardheaded or what? Do you want proof? What proof would you accept? I’ve provided you with links to the patents would you take the time to read them? I’ve also provided you with links to pages that have information about Brayton engines do you take the time to read those? Maybe you just don’t understand mechanical devices? If that’s the case you should not be editing pages they try to educate people about the history of these things. Imotorhead64 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, your comment is neither very friendly nor useful. Contents on Wikipedia must be verifiable, not "true". We don't judge for ourselves, we simply write what the sources say. Sass (1962), p. 413, Richard (1892), p. 669, and even the website that you've brought up all say the more or less the same thing about Brayon's 1872 engine. And it should be totally clear that an 1890 patent cannot judge whether or not an 1872 engine can be considered air-blast injected. Don't get me wrong, the sources clearly indicate that Brayton's 1890 engine uses an improved air-blast injection system, and it is totally acceptable to mention it. However, there is no reason to remove Sass's opinion(!), not mine(!) on when Brayton invented air-blast injection. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement

Hello Johannes,

You recently left a comment on my draft that I should improve the draft before I resubmit it again. Could you please elaborate on that what particular improvements you mean? I appreciate it a lot.

--ZahraBonari (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! In an article on Jason Bahbak Mohaghegh, you should not cite books composed by him. The sources should be composed by other people. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Marie Seong-Hak Kim (Historian)

Hello Johannes, Thanks for your comment on the Draft of Marie Seong-Hak Kim. My response to your concerns is below.

Concerning the comment, ..”relies too much on sources written by Kim”: Many of these citations are from acknowledgements in her books referencing personal information like family, education info, and mentors. The majority of references in the Scholarship section come from reviews of her work by prominent scholars in the field of Legal History. Other references of her work are included in the draft, primarily as “See” references. This was done in lieu of providing a list of articles which does not tie them with specific areas of her scholarship.

The subject’s notability and achievements fulfill criteria 1 (“has had significant impact in scholarly discipline”), 2 (“has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor”), and 3 of the WP:PROF criteria list.

1. Kim has published 5 books by major presses (including Cambridge U Press and Oxford U Press), over 25 academic journal articles, over a dozen scholarly book chapters, excluding book reviews and miscellaneous short writings. She published articles in English, French, Japanese, and Korean. Her books have been reviewed by highly cited journals in both law and history fields (Am. J. of Comp. Law, J. of Asian Studies, Am. Hist. Rev, etc.), in English as well as foreign language journals (Revue international de droit comparé, Zeitschrift für Japanisches Recht, Toyo Bunka Kenkyu, etc). Journals in which her articles appeared are all extremely rigorous and selective journals around the world (American J. of Comp. Law, Law & Hist. Rev., J. of Asian Studies, J. of Japanese Studies., The Hague Journal of the Rule of Law, etc.). She holds a unique place in the legal history field, carrying out interdisciplinary and comparative research in law, history, Europe, and Asia.

2 & 3. Kim has received a number of highly prestigious academic awards and honors at both national and international levels. These include NEH Fellowship and Fulbright Fellowship in the US and Fellowships in Europe and Asia, including Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study Fellowship, Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Fellowship (European Institutes for Advanced Study and Marie Curie Fellow of the European Union), Collegium de Lyon Fellowship (Institut d’Etudes Avancées), and Käte Hamburger Kolleg Fellowship, and Social Science Research Council Abe Foundation Fellowship. All these awards have been documented and verified by the awarding institutions and through webpages.

May be a bit too much info, but again thank you for your help and guidance. Histscho89 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mahmoud Shehabi Khorassani

hello, Johannes Maximilian, thank you for having been kind enough to read my draft, but unfortunately given that it was not in the standard required by wikipedia, you refused it. Now I tried again to put it in required standard, I hope :). can you please take a look at it and tell me if it's ok or something still needs to be changed.

I would like to add that this article concerns a very well-known personality in Iran (1903-1986) and that there is already a wikipedia page in Persian and one in French on him.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Chehabi

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/محمود_شهابی_خراسانی

thanks in advance.--Docteur Mansour Chehabi (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ivan Kravtsov

Hello Johannes, thank you for the comment!

I rewrote the article to improve the overall language, could you please have a look at it? Thanks in advance. --Kianugears (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

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

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

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Cannot Find the "Draft:Abu Torab Fatemi Mehra" as notified. thx!

A document I spent considerable time on has been deleted. This is a sandbox. why the bully!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UserCmehrasandbox.jpg

Please retrieve ASAP.

Thanks,

Cyrus C. MehraCmehra (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyrus, please see WP:REFUND. The user's sandbox is not a place for submitting drafts – this is why your AfC submission was moved to the draft space. Drafts that were declined or abandoned are deleted. I always recommend saving a copy of your work on your local hard disk. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bango plc information

Hello, would just like to request more info on useful sections for the Bango plc page, alongside corporate history and fiscal data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehrozs (talk • contribs) 10:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You can simply add anything that reliable sources consider worth mentioning. I was a bit concerned about the partners, simply because announcing partnerships doesn't hurt, and doesn't require any notable incidents – i. e. notability in the sense of Wikipedia cannot be established through partnership announcements. Articles should make it immediately obvious why Wikipeida would have an article on the subject. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Haynes

I did change it since the last time I submitted it. I added references, I don’t understand what more I have to do? She was literally on a TV show which is linked which is a primary source, along the magazine articles, and the CBS biography.

—Angelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarquessAngewoah (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MarquessAngewoah! In a Wikipedia article, it is not only important that something is true, but also that it is worth mentioning. By citing a source that is secondary, reliable, independent of the subject, and which covers the subject significantly, you ensure that a Wikipedia article is warranted. In your case, the sources that you have cited are reliable, but they are neither secondary, nor do they cover the subject significantly. I suggest that you cite sources that monothematically discuss Haynes. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I cut? I feel like all of the information was pertinent to her life and her stay in the Big Brother house. Do I cut the references that don’t directly cover her?

—-Angelo

So?? I don’t understand? MarquessAngewoah (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you are asleep but let me attempt helping you out anyways. A Wikipedia article is so to speak a "re-narration" or "reproduction" of the sources that it's based upon. This doesn't mean creating direct word-by-word copies of the sources, it rather means that you describe, using your own words, what the sources have to say. So let's have a look at source 6 (CBS) of your draft. What it says is that "on 1 May 2022, Big Brother season 16 launches in the US. The show was recording using 94 cameras and 194 microphones." As you can obviously see, this is totally unrelated to Haynes. What you need to find is sources that have something pertinent to say about Haynes. Then you cite these sources using the accepted methods of doing so (see WP:CITEHOW for help). Now remember that, sources need to be reliable, (i.e. sources that have a reputation for providing well-researched information), independent of the subject (i.e. sources that Haynes cannot influence, neither directly nor indirectly, so that it is warranted to believe that a knowledgable, reliable source considers her to be so important that she can be subject of an article), secondary (i.e. sources that are not an event, speech, photograph, original writing, etc., but an interpretation of these), and that cover the subject significantly (i.e. a source that monothematically discusses Haynes without talking too much about anything else). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MarquessAngewoah (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Richard Mortimer (Musician)

Hi, thanks for your comment (I hope I'm doing this right, I'm still a relative newbie). I'll change the Discogs references to MusicBrainz references. Please let me know of that's correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophytte (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Peddireddy Ramachandra Reddy

Just to let you know, I overrode your declination of this draft and moved it to mainspace and cleaned it up so that it is in a grammatically acceptable state. NOTDICT isn't really a valid decline rationale in this instance, as this isn't a word; declining for v would've been a bit more understandable; however, as the subject is notable via WP:NPOL and the sources provided confirm this, then it would be preferable to accept. Stubs are acceptable if they sufficiently demonstrate that the subject is notable. Cheers Curbon7 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I felt that NOTDICT was indeed a bit awkward, yet I'd argue that an article should be an article – on my screen, there was less than one half line of text. Anyone could create "articles" like this in a few minutes – but it certainly wouldn't be an improvement; the days of "non-content articles" have been over for 20 years I reckon. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Teija Niku declined submission by you

Please, give detailed explanation of your claims

that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

i.e. do not refer just Wikipedia guidelines and recommendations. How the sources are not indipendent and why, for example. How "they not show significant coverage"?

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.

Where do you see in the whole article a single sentence advertising something?

Regards, --Bocin kolega (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bocin kolega!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, id est it depicts and describes what is believed to be established knowledge. Therefore, anything that you wish to write about in Wikipedia has to described in so-called secondary sources (monographs, books that describe several aspects of a single topic, scientific articles, or articles in at least nationally well-known newspapers). Please note that these sources have to be reliable, independent of the subject, and they have to describe the subject significantly. In the article, you have cited four sources:

WOMEX
aallotarmusic
De La Croix de Lafayette
Kaleva

The WOMEX source is not independent of the subject, because it was created by a public relations firm called Haapavesi Folk ry, which is paid by Niku. Aallotar is also directly associated with Niku and thus also not independent of the subject. Wikipedia's reliable sources policy explicitly prohibits the use of these sources, see WP:SPONSORED. De La Croix de Lafayette is a self-publishing author and thus unreliable; citing his book is not acceptable in Wikipedia (see WP:RSSELF). I have no understanding of the Suomi language, so I cannot determine whether or not Kaleva is an acceptable source. But even if we pretend it is acceptable – a single source does not indicate notability. You need to cite proper sources for the article.

Regarding the "advert" problem: Wikipedia describes the topics of its articles from a neutral point of view. Anything that is a strong value judgement has to be very-well sourced, and it has to be described whose judgement that is. Your draft's first clause reads "[Niku is] an expert in Nordic and Balkan folk music". The second sentence reads "She is a composer with an excellent sense of melody and an inventive arranger"… Do you need more examples? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Post Scriptum: The draft also refers to some sources without citing them.[reply]

Response

False statement: The WOMEX source is not independent of the subject, because it was created by a public relations firm called Haapavesi Folk ry, which is paid by Niku

From https://haapavesi.fi/node/1393 * Haapavesi Folk ry - is a non-commercial cultural organization, which since 1989 organizes annual international folk music festival, which became traditional in our town and well-known in Finland – Haapavesi FOLK. In spring and autumn there are folk music weekends presenting musicians from different countries. In winter, in January-February, the association holds a music event called "Music of Past Years”.*

Re: Aallotar is also directly associated with Niku and thus also not independent of the subject.

"Directly" means what? The author of the biographical data about the two musicians is Christian Pliefke. Is there any other reference questioning the biographical data given here?

False statement: De La Croix de Lafayette is a self-publishing author and thus unreliable;

What are you talking about? The athor Maximillien de Lafayette is not owner of the Times Square Press publishing company

False statement: But even if we pretend it is acceptable – a single source does not indicate notability

See above - there are multiple sources supporting Niku's notability

False statement all about advertisements:. Your draft's first clause reads "[Niku is] an expert in Nordic and Balkan folk music". The second sentence reads "She is a composer with an excellent sense of melody and an inventive arranger"…

The above text is about appraisals of Niku's artistic achievements, not advertisements.

--Bocin kolega (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward question: Do you have a conflict of interest or are you being paid to edit? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of it. You are obliged to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF fundamental principles--Bocin kolega (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christian Lavernier

Dear Johannes, thanks for your help and your remarks. Can you give me some clue to better improve my content? I tried to use a neutral language but evidently there are still some errors. Thanks in advance. --Kastalia81 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion / Question

Hello there, i got a "thank you" from you for one of my edits, so i read your userpage up and find it interesting, but im a bit surprised your nationality isn't there at all. Can I ask you where you're from? And i'd suggest adding that to your userpage if you'd like, it would be nice. Cheers - Joaquin89uy (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Svetolik Jaksic

You left a comment here indicating this is a notable topic. On what do you base this assessment? ~Kvng (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I pretty much base that upon GNG. Any topic is notable for inclusion within Wikipedia if it is covered by a significant quantity of reliable secondary sources. It is warranted to assume that these sources exist (because they appear as citations in the references list). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the sources specifically? There are 6 cited and they don't seem to be complete. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references list is obviously incomplete (i.e. it calls Harvard citation no brackets) without specifying what the cited sources are; they have been specified in the corresponding article found in the Serbocroatian language version of Wikipedia using the cyrillic alphabet, but the English draft lacks them. I have noted this in the draft (Special:Contribs/1081337932) so it's up to the submitter to fix this. Regarding notability: Now because the English draft's references section is totally shot I have looked up the Serbocroatian language article found on sr.wikipedia and checked its references section. And it definitely indicates notability: The cited books are biographic works, thus it is warranted to assume that they discuss Yakshitch (I suppose that's the best version of his name in English per WP:TRANSLITERATE) in significant detail. Otherwise I would not have stated that I believe that he is notable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia:Map data/Singapore/Sentosa Monorail (1982-2005).map

You declined this draft as a "test edit", which is not true. The submission is a Wikipedia:Map data and I have already been able to use it to display the map at Sentosa_Monorail#Stations ——2406:3003:2077:1E60:D59D:E6EC:AEA9:4652 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft space is meant for articles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I used the new page wizard and that's what I got. If I understand correctly, you are saying that AFC is not the correct mechanism to get this reviewed and accepted. If so, can you please advise how to get the page approved and moved to its appropriate final location at Wikipedia:Map data/Singapore/Sentosa Monorail (1982-2005). Thanks! —— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:D59D:E6EC:AEA9:4652 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the map into the Wikipedia namespace. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! —— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:D59D:E6EC:AEA9:4652 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:52:16, 21 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by GJAHANA

GJAHANA (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Shoxrux Hamdamov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

GJAHANA (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 HELLO, please someone help me to publish my article about uzbek actor which i am writing about 8 month here in wikipedia, i never thought its such hard to publish :( please someone help me..