This is an archive of past discussions with User:DoubleGrazing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for your help, earlier this month, advising me on how to improve my article with citations and sources.
As it is now completed and waiting for review, I thought I would bring it back to your attention. Would it be possible for you, as an experienced editor, to review my article to avoid the "up to 8 week" wait?
Hello @DoubleGrazing Apologies in advance as I am not sure of the best way to approach this, but I sent you a message on 6th March and I don't appear to have had a reply, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place! The message said: Thank you DoubleGrazing. I have added the citation you suggested to the form - at least I think it is in the correct place, but please let me know if it isn't?! With regard to Anna Pasternak - I thought I had taken care of this as I had communication with a Wiki editor who told me to include
This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Anna Pasternak for their contributions to Wikipedia.
on the talk page which I did and the editor even went in and checked it for me and let me know it was correct so I don't know why or where it had disappeared to! Would you please check that I have added the correct information to the correct place before proceeding any further with this article? I greatly appreciate your knowledge and experience with this as I am still finding my way around Wikipedia. Thank you. Lornadot (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Lornadot: thanks for the disclosure. I've edited the template on your user page slightly (it had nowiki wrappers and some other crud which prevented it from working correctly), please check that you're happy with it now.
You have previously reviewed one of my articles for publication (Solaris (solar power)) , and I have just submitted another one - a short biography. I was hoping you would be willing to review it too. See: Draft:Kerissa Khan.
Please note, I have added (hidden) categories ready to be used on the published article. And I have also added a "statement of interests" at the top as the most recent edit to the page. I liked the way you put a note on the discussion page of the Solaris article which linked to my statement last time, so I tried to do the same format this time.
Hey there, Double, I kind of need your help on learning positive vs. negative edits since whenever I make any edits I get warnings. --Iheartu12346 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
You should not attempt to write your own biography, for the reasons described in WP:AUTOBIO. If you are notable enough, someone else may write about you one day. Until then, just focus on your real-life career.
I am happy to advice you on editing, of course, but I have no desire to get involved in writing an article about you or any other requested subject. Better yet, you can find pretty much all the advice you need on article creation at WP:YFA.
DoubleGrazing left a message on your talk page in "Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ll360j/sandbox".
So...I realize that much of the messaging regarding page content, moderation, deletion, etc. is autogenerated...so I am ratcheting back my general agita over the offensive terminology sent to me. My page was intended to be used for an extremely large, full-scale, emergency response exercise as part of our real-world "sandbox" and not as a "hoax." Apologies if this is not an approved use of the page, but it would have been an excellent resource that we apparently, for no articulated reason, cannot use. The page was nascent as a proof-of-concept exercise that now apparently needs to be abandoned. I strongly recommend including CLEAR guidance on policy (it is not clear) and a free-form text box that is easily found to allow people to actually explain their intent. Ll360j (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Draft
Hello mate,
You declined Draft:National Distributist Party a few months back, I have recently edited it in line (hopefullty) with your notes and was hoping you could have another look at it.
I noticed the draft world shiology forum was deleted as it contains information or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. As far as I know, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is intended to help provide free access to human knowledge. World shiology forum is a meaningful international event, and information in the draft is genunie and not promotional. It deserves to be known by more people. And there are other world forums in Wikipedia, such as Social and Environmental Responsibility World Forum, and World Forum for Democracy. World shiology forum has similiar missions as these events. So, please enlighten me with details or anyting i can do to improve the article? Thanks. Eileenljp1116 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Eileenljp1116: no draft has been deleted on the WP:U5 basis which you refer to (none that I'm aware of, at least). What has been deleted is your user page User:Eileenljp1116, because the content found there was not compliant with our user page guidelines; see WP:UP.
Your article on the World Shiology Forum was moved from the main article space to the draft space, and is now at Draft:World Shiology Forum. I declined the draft, as there was no evidence that the subject was notable per WP:ORG. I furthermore deleted sections of it and requested them to be purged from the edit history as copyright violations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank u for your quick response and explaination.
Ok for the deletion of my userpage. And I will work on the references.
As for the copyright violations, i assume it will be ok if i rewrite the deleted part (not just closely paraphrased) or add quotation mark as needed, in addition to providing sources.Eileenljp1116 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Eileenljp1116: yes, you may and should rewrite the deleted sections in your own words.
This player was one of the best of his time. W. L. Siriwardhana was another prominent SL volleyball player. However, there is not much work available online because they dominate their fields where social media never exist Praneethlaksiri2020 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Newbie here
I noticed you tagged my article for speedy deletion. And you mentioned that it sounds like an advertisement. Does it mean I can just rewrite it in a more neutral tone and once submitted it won't be deleted? I am having hard time understanding how these stuff works so if you can recommend any YouTube video on how Wikipedia works.  Vi vi gurl (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Vi vi gurl: this is, in a nutshell, how one writes a Wikipedia article:
Find a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary sources (books, TV or radio programmes, newspapers, magazines, etc.) that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
Summarise (in your own words, but without putting any 'spin' or peacockery on it) what they have said; no more, no less.
Cite each source against the content it has provided, so that the information can be verified.
This gives you the appropriate content, required referencing, as well as proof of notability (which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia) all at once. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Uh oh...we disagree...maybe? I just declined Draft:Gantt Cottage by the same editor, @VCannella3. I did so because that specific building is not listed by the NRHP individually. The listing is for the district, Penn Center (Saint Helena Island, South Carolina), which also the case with Benezet House, I think. Looking at the listing document, both are mentioned but nothing in-depth. Is it common for all the buildings within a designated historic district to pass notability? I am happy to be wrong in this situation and/or if you think it is best to accept and let others decide. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I know I am not familiar with the Wikipedia approval requirements as I have only recently joined, but I did want to respond to your comment on the review. Yes, the listing is for the Penn Center (school district) as a whole, but it is the building's (and the history of the site) that compose the campus of the center that define the historic quality of the district. I am the one who edited the main Wikipedia article to add the list of buildings which includes the brief mention of Gantt cottage, but I thought it necessary to make independent articles, as their descriptions on the Penn center page is not comprehensive to all of their information and I thought at least that the Gantt Cottage article added more information that what was covered in the main article that added to the character and history of Penn center historic district. Please let me know if you think this is an incorrect assumption. I understand that some buildings might not have as much information or significance in comparison to others. VCannella3 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I also wanted to ask about the comment that:
"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject"
As the references I listed are from the library of congress, the Penn center itself, the national register of Historic places, and the archives of south Carolina to start and I am unsure how these sources are not all of the above? Please let me know what I could do to change that. VCannella3 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @S0091: I don't know, is the short answer; I assumed lazily that being on the register, whether as an individual building or part of a 'cluster' like this, would satisfy the WP:GEOFEAT requirement, but I may well have got that wrong. I don't even know where to go for the answer, beyond what the guideline says (which isn't very much).
I think I let this one be autopatrolled when I accepted it – do you think I should un-patrol it and let someone else take a view? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, it looks like I am in the minority as another reviewer accepted another building so I am going to resubmit Gantt Cottage and accept it. At the very least, it doesn't seem right to be inconsistent. S0091 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@S0091: hey, don't knock minority! As Gandhi said, "even if you're a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" (or something like that... and even if we don't know what the truth is). :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I think I accidentally stumbled into the same quandary when reviewing the same editor's other drafts. I'm inclined to generally agree with S0091 here in that most of the structures are not independently notable. However, a building with a legitimate claim to being the site where the March on Washington and "I have a dream" speech were drawn up is probably independently notable. My belief is that the buildings without independent notability (representing most of the drafts) ought to be merged to the main Penn Center article and will be very substantial and helpful additions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@Al Begamut: you mean the edit summary? No, you cannot edit that after it has been posted. I wouldn't worry about it. Or if you do worry, you can always make a dummy edit, allowing you to post a new summary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
John P. Noonan submission
Good morning:
I just amended citation number 1. Can you please look at it and tell me what I did right and what I did wrong, and I'll take your feedback to edit/amend all my other citations.
@Jeff Neuhauser: it seems you've scanned some newspaper articles and similar, and uploaded them to a WordPress site, which you're then citing as a source. This causes all sorts of problems:
It makes the references all look non-reliable, because they show up as a blog, rather than as the original publication.
It's possible that those articles are still in copyright, in which case your scans thereof could be copyright violations.
If the WordPress site where these are hosted goes down, all the sources would be lost.
You should therefore cite the original sources directly. If they are not available online, you can still cite them, you just need to provide enough bibliographical detail to enable them to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
