User talk:Cabrils/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Revised version of Page Draft:Dinesh Verma

Hello, Thanks for your feedback on Draft: Dinesh Verma. As you have recommended, I have changed the references to sources other than IBM. The only exception is the listing of fellows by IBM, which should be a valid reference and the citation dealing with the announcement. I have also done a pass to remove any links in the main text, and also removed anything which is not written in an objective manner. Please take a look and advise if anything else needs to be updated to make the draft appropriate to be published. Mtwpact (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Mtwpact (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Well done! Great improvements. I've now accepted the draft, welcome to the Main Space. I would encourage you to continue developing the page, it's a good contribution. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

To Dream

Hi, i would like to understand why the infobox informations doesnt show. I just made a movie page. As its a movie and not an actor page, maybe its different. Heres is the link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?create=Create+new+article+draft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&summary=--+Draft+creation+using+the+%5B%5BWP%3AArticle+wizard%5D%5D+--&title=Draft%3ATo_Dream# Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is a good question for the Teahouse! Cabrils (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 I asked and moat is resolved but only the genre still don't show up. Do you think someday some of Independent British sources would be seen as reliable? Cause it seems that only the famous sources are known but for Independent artists they are less known and less likely to be noticed by "reliable sources" Veganpurplefox (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to peruse the lengthy discussions about reliable sources. Cabrils (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I read it countless of times but i barely understand what they mean. I dont know any british newspapers either,some sources could be reliable but since im not British i dont know if the source is actually reliable or not. Or woth British Urban Film Festival its independent and british so of course its not gonna be the teen choices awards everyone knows. Is there some types of data that would write every british sources i could use? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the Teahouse. Cabrils (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Jeff Yabuki

Hello Cabrils,

You reviewed my draft for the article about Jeff Yabuki on March 15. Per your suggestions, additional secondary sources have been added to the article to help qualify the article for Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is anything else that you would suggest to get this article approved in a timely manner. Jeterpackson (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jeterpackson, well done on progressing the draft. You'll be pleased that I've accepted it. Further to my original comment on the draft, I note that you did not delete the press releases (they are not reliable sources), so I have now removed them. I expect the page to undergo some trimming in mainspace to better meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO as it is still feeling overly promotional in tone to me. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, for the article of a village

Hi @Cabrils! based on the information you gave me, I have included references in the article to confirm what I write. I hope it is enough to be accepted in the article space. Thank you for your time!!. Resident of Greece (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Resident of Greece! Thanks for the ping. I can see you've done a lot of work on the draft, well done! That's a huge improvement. Unfortunately I don't feel confident in reviewing the page further as all the references are in Greek, which I do not speak, so that makes it difficult for me to assess their credibility. For example, [this], [this], [this] and [this] appear to me to NOT be reliable sources for establishing the notability of the village; but as I said, I don't speak Greek so I might be wrong. In the circumstances I think it's best to wait for another reviewer to assess the page. In the meantime, you should consider continuing to improve the draft as much as you can to meet WP:GNG. Again, well done and best of luck with it! Cabrils (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cabrils

I totally understand! I will help you at this point.

First of all, the pages you mentioned do not exist, you must delete the last letter (this | )

1)

The first website you mentioned has the English language option.

You can make it British, on the top right there is the flag of the United Kingdom, press it and it will be understood.

It is called: Driving distances, fuel costs and detailed driving directions

and writes based on the search you want how many kilometers it is.

2)

On the second website it clearly says this

population

The years 1990 – 1991 are the period of arrival of expatriate returnees and North Epirotians, during which a large volume of them, under the guidance of E.I.Y.A.P.O.E. (Eng: N.F.R.R.R.E.G.) (National Foundation for the Reception and Rehabilitation of Returned Expatriates Greeks), is installed in a special reception area. The guests, according to the plan, would live there temporarily and later integrate into nearby villages, finding permanent housing and work. Nevertheless, the new residents stayed in military-style TOLs, and many of them are still there today.

Greek Version ( Original )

ΠΛΗΘΥΣΜΟΣ

Τα έτη 1990 – 1991 είναι η περίοδος έλευσης ομογενών παλιννοστούντων και βορειοηπειρωτών, κατά την οποία ένας μεγάλος όγκος αυτών, υπό την καθοδήγηση του Ε.Ι.Υ.Α.Π.Ο.Ε. (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Υποδοχής και Αποκατάστασης Παλλινοστούντων Ομογενών Ελλήνων), εγκαθίσταται σε ειδικό χώρο υποδοχής. Οι φιλοξενούμενοι, σύμφωνα με το σχεδιασμό, θα έμεναν εκεί προσωρινά και αργότερα θα ενσωματώνονταν σε παρακείμενα χωριά, βρίσκοντας μόνιμη στέγη και εργασία. Παρ' όλα αυτά, οι νέοι κάτοικοι έμειναν σε ΤΟΛ στρατιωτικού τύπου, πολλοί δε από αυτούς εξακολουθούν έως και σήμερα.

3)

The third is a report from a Greek political party

where it clearly mentions how the Greeks of Pontus live in Sheet metal - Containers (such as Containerized housing unit)

and all the residents living there (110 families) settled temporarily but it turned out that they will live there for life.

4)

And the fourth, the last

It is local news from Kavala for proof on the internet that it has been renamed from "Prosfyges" (meaning Refugees)

in Neos Zygos

and joined after 30 years in the Municipality of Kavala is a huge record compared to all other villages.

Thank you for your patience! I hope I helped you Resident of Greece (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your detailed reply. Again, my lack of Greek prevents me from helping you further, but in any event, even with the English translation you provide, none of those 4 sources appear to me to be “reliable” (see how Wikipedia defines reliable sources) and so do not help establish the notability of the village, which is necessary to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. As I said, keep doing your best to improve the draft and see what other reviewers think. All the best with it! Cabrils (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I won't be able to continue. Because all sources are in Greek. Thank you for your help @Cabrils. Resident of Greece (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a pity! It's fine that the sources are in Greek (they do not have to be in English)--I just don't feel confident to approve the draft because I don't speak any Greek. More relevantly, it's the nature of the sources that's important: they must be reliable. I do hope you you persevere. All the best! Cabrils (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Cabrils for this information. Can you help me on one point, in one reference there is a mistake which I tried to correct but failed, The reference is the 10 ^ and it says in red letters: line feed character in |title= at position 53. Can you fix it? (when you find time of course) because I couldn't fix it. Thank you. Resident of Greece (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been fixed, but not by me! Cabrils (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thank you @Achmad Rachmani

@Cabrils If I move it, will it be disputed?

Tourists come and have difficulty with the roads, most settlements must be written in English as well. Especially near the main roads like this village. Resident of Greece (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi-- you should not move it! However, having reviewed the amended draft, I think it now meets the criteria so you'll be pleased to see I have accepted it. Thank you for your patience and well done! Cabrils (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Vladlen Koltun

Hello Cabrils,

Thank you for your constructive feedback and guidance on the draft I've been working on. I appreciate your willingness to help, and I'm grateful for your encouragement to persevere. I've taken your comments to heart and have made several revisions to the draft, aiming to better meet Wikipedia's guidelines and requirements.

Some of the changes include the removal of a primary source (Vladlen's website) from the "Early life and education" section, trimming the "career" section, adding a "Hirsch index critique" subsection, improving the lead of the draft, and ensuring that the research part is well-organized. I have also been careful to consult the "referencing for beginners" and "Easier Referencing for Beginners" resources you provided to further strengthen the draft's referencing.

I understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for CV-like content, and I have made an effort to revise the draft to make it more encyclopedic and less like a CV. I hope you find these changes satisfactory and that they bring the draft closer to meeting the standards of notability.

I kindly request that you review the revised draft at your earliest convenience and provide your valuable insights on its current state. If there's anything else that can be improved, please let me know, and I'll be happy to continue refining the draft.

Thank you once again for your time and assistance, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the updated draft. Best regards, Justr1ght4 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Justr1ght4, thanks for the kind words. Well done on improving the draft, it's definitely heading in the right direction.

To me it is still reading far too much like a CV and promotional piece for Koltun. It well may be that he meets WP:PROF but I cannot determine that yet because there are so many unreliable sources and pith overwhelming the draft. There is a lack of articles about him, rather than by him, which are required to meet the notability criteria (and for this purpose sources like Google Scholar are not considered reliable). I would suggest you make a copy of the current draft, then look closely at WP:PROF and substantially trim the article down to the absolute bare minimum to meet the criteria, because that will clearly show if he meets them. In time the article can be expanded but for now I cannot clearly see how it meets WP:PROF. My assessment may be wrong of course, so it would be helpful if you could please clarify, with specificity, how you see Koltun meeting the criteria in WP:PROF?

Also, I acknowledge and thank your COI declaration that you have been paid to produce this page. Again, I do think we can get there but it's just still too promotional.

Please let me know if you have any more questions and I would be very happy to help. I look forward to seeing the revised draft. Cabrils (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Cabrils. Fair points – I will rework on the draft, so it complies with the guidlines. I think to meet WP:PROF, this point: "There is a lack of articles about him, rather than by him" doesn't apply (this is can qualify him too but it is a different criteria, i.e. WP:GNG). WP:PROF was specifically created because it is hard to find media coverage about academic people (most of them live private lives), so citations count is more appropriate method to judge the notability. He does meet specific criteria #1, due to high citations count and h-index. I'd get back soon as I finish clean-up of the draft. Regards, Justr1ght4 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably also meets WP:NPROF Criteria # 5 "The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." as he is a distinguished scientist at Apple. It is something noteworthy. Justr1ght4 (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, well done. Thanks for the clean up and for those clarifications, I'm inclined to agree. So I'd be happy to accept the revised draft so please submit it and let me know. Cabrils (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils, thank you very much. I have re-edited the whole draft and according to the guidelines, removed possibly unreliable sources and added some third-party references. Research section is very concise now and is discussing the research work that was covered by the mainstream media. Could you give me another favor and review it please? Thanks, Justr1ght4 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Well done! Article accepted. Cabrils (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Matthias Faes

Hallo Cabrils,

You reviewed my draft on the article for Draft:Matthias_Faes earlier. Many thanks for this, I highly appreciate it!

Per your suggestion, I added now an external, independent source that provides coverage of Faes' career as a full Professor at TU Dortmund, as well as the road that brought him there. Please let me know if the article is acceptable like this, or whether more sources are required.

Your colleague mentioned that some of the sources are just listing Faes' name in a list of other people. I added these to provide reference for some of the claims made in the article (e.g., awards & editorial roles in leading journals). Please also let me know if this is not appropriate. ~~~~ Dr.r0gu3 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, well done on the changes. I have reviewed the revised draft and made some further edits. At this point I would be happy to accept the page so please re-submit it and let me know.

For completeness, I should note that I am getting a sense that you may have a conflict of interest in creating this page and any COI should be declared, including if you are, or know, the subject; or are being paid to create the page? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Cherryfield College Abuja

Hi Cabrils, I have added some more references, please kindly review.

Thanks. Salihu44 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well done, good additions. Page accepted. Cabrils (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Exim Bank of India

you declined my article. please now check it can be moved to mainspace. DilipSpatel (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, good work progressing the draft.

Firstly, on my reading, many of the references are not considered reliable sources because they are from the website of the subject of the page (Exim Bank), or from sources that are not reliable, or from articles that are not substantial. Please audit the sources and remove any non-reliable sources; and try to add reliable sources. Please also remove duplicated sources and format correctly (please see referencing for beginners or the article Easier Referencing for Beginners).

Secondly, if you are being paid to create this page, or you are associated with the bank, you have a conflict of interest that must be declared.

Once you have implemented these suggestions please ping me here and I would be happy to reassess. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Resubmitting Draft:Mark Litke

Hello, thank you for your feedback on my draft. I've just cleaned up the citations a lot and resubmitted for review. I reviewed other ABC news correspondents pages and I think the citations are similar both in number and substance, so please let me know if you have any other feedback. Renee.gholikely (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, well done, it's looking much better. There's still a couple of issues.

The following links don't seem to work:

• http://abcmedianet.com/shows05/news/correspondents/litke.shtml
• http://www.cdn.emmyonline.org/news_31st_nominations.pdf

Some evidence of the Emmy Awards would help them be verified.

The draft now only has a single source mentioning Litke (https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/more-abc-correspondents-out/16562/). The page really requires more-- please keep looking for at least one more article about Litke as a notable journalist. As Missvain commented on the draft:

"We need *significant* in-depth coverage (that is independent of the subject - meaning no promotional pieces, government websites, event websites, social media, press releases, paid coverage) in notable major media outlets or by notable publishers about Mark Litke. Examples: magazine and newspaper reviews and features about Mark Litke specifically; books or peer-reviewed white papers written ABOUT Mark Litke; television and radio features ABOUT Mark Litke."

If you are being paid to create this page, or you are associated with the bank, you have a conflict of interest that must be declared. Cabrils (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Resubmitting Draft:Sergio Rajsbaum

Hello @Cabrils:, Thank you very much for the feedback on my article. I have just corrected my draft. Could you, please, check it again? Au873aks (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, great work, huge improvements. Just 2 things:

• Please remove all inline external links (in accord with WP:MOS) and where possible replace with a link to the relevant Wikipedia entry (use the 'link' icon at the top of the window to do this).
• Secondly, if you are being paid or are associated with Rajsbaum you have an inherent conflict of interest that you must declare please.

Please let me know when you've implemented these suggestions and I would be happy to reassess the draft. Cabrils (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cabrils:, I have just corrected my draft. Could you, please, tell me if it is correct?

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's looking good.

However, you have not addressed the conflict of interest concern. For the absence of doubt, could you please confirm here that you are NOT being paid or have any association with Rajsbaum? It is curious how else you obtained his photograph and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons? Having a conflict of interest does not exclude you from drafting a page, but it should be declared on your Talk page. I'll await you reply, thanks. Cabrils (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cabrils: I am Rajsbaum’s student at the university. This is my relation with him. I hope this information helps the publication of my article. Could you, please, tell me if this information is enough?

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, that's all OK, you just need to formally declare that on your User Page (that you need to create): to see instructions on how to do this, please see the details at WP:COI. Let me know once you've done that and I'd be happy to accept the page. Cabrils (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cabrils: I have just created my User Page and added the template to show that I have a COI. I hope my article is ready to be accepted by you.

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cabrils:

I just want to make sure you got my previous message.

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, that's great, well done. Article accepted. Cabrils (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Cabrils:

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

North Island little spotted kiwi

In the future, you can tag redirects that obstruct acceptance of an article with {{db-afc-move}} to request that the redirect be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Robert! Is there a way I can simply edit that re-direct myself so I can progress the process without having to shift that task to someone else? Cabrils (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dealing with unconstructive talk page comments

Hello, I hope you're having a good day. I remember you asked me a few days ago how I revert vandalism so fast, and I will start by saying that I have answered your question on my talk page. I am letting you know that in the event you haven't seen it yet.

But primarily here, I want to recommend something to you going forward when you receive talk page messages on the order of what is above me. If a user gets especially rude, don't respond, just revert it and either warn them on their talk page or ignore them entirely. I understand that this is up to you, given that this is your talk page, but I just wanted to suggest this since I saw the conduct above by the IP user and it seems like the kind of thing I would remove from my own talk page.

I just wanted to offer this advice. Thank you for your contributions! JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, thanks for the sensible advice! Cabrils (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I just wouldn't want a well-intentioned user to invest too much time into indulging trolling and other things that just aren't worth it. There are certainly good faith editors on Wikipedia whose unintentional disruption is worth discussing with them, but that description most certainly does not apply to that conduct. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Haha, agree. Cabrils (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated Draft: Peter F. Barth

Please forgive the delay, but I have carefully reviewed the collective feedback and finally have done a major rewrite and update based on that.

You kindly offered to review it upon my edit before I resubmitted it, and I would welcome that, if still possible. Thank you. Thapkhay (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, well done progressing the draft. I've looked at the revised draft but still feel that notability has not been established for neurophysicist, engineer and educator. Author may potentially have been met (see WP:AUTHOR) but you need to assess that criteria specifically. The draft still contains far too much fluff and reads like a CV, which Wikipedia is not. Far too many references are to works by the subject--these do NOT contribute to establishing notability. Please review and amend the draft accordingly and then get back in touch, but it would help if you could list, with specificity, the notability criteria you see as being met. Cabrils (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. So glad to hear back from you - and so quickly too! If there is any “progress in my Draft, it is in largely thanks to you.

Some “first questions”(Q)/“first thoughts)(T), if I may, to help me prioritize my efforts…

Q1) Do you think I may/should just not mention “engineering” at all? (T1: what I can say in engineering just isn’t “Wikipedia worthy”, seems to me, even with 2-3 decades very active in it…indeed more CV stuff, the wrong direction I fear..)

Q2) Is it not right to assume it is sufficient that “education” fully goes along with my “authoring” guide books to meditation (to cultivate a person’s self-understanding) and teaching people /groups how to meditate (for countless years!), so perhaps it really doesn’t need more extra emphasis on notability?

(T2: On the other hand, education can not be dropped..so..If I try to address this with my navigating what may be called the old “circle of yogis approach in light of the new, Carl Rogers humanistic educational approach, which I certainly was involved in, it might be worth bringing out?)

Q3) Doesn’t paragraph with Reference 12 establish notability’s in “physics” (in that my work is the final reference in 12, in its string of other references, which helped provide the starting point for their work, which resulted in new methods in theoretical physics and produced numerous new exact solutions for them. Similarly, Reference 13, reaffirms the notability of my original conclusion that the Ising model may play an important role in the “neurophysics” of neural networks in neuroscience, establishing the why it should be studied further? (T3: btw, these were based on your advice and I credit you that I found these!)

Q4) I am assuming not all references/citations have to add to notability, and that I may use them to improve the “reader experience,” (e.g. for those who want to see the book referred to, or want more information on a point being made), is that correct? (In many ref/citations I am doing this when I think notability is already established or will become clear and established later on in the page and other references included in it.)

Finally, the 4 points on “author” are very helpful..yet, my first read, is that these were covered “a bit or more” in all 4, but I certainly will revisit this in light of the link.

Thank you very much!!! Any answers/thoughts on the questions/comments would be appreciated!

Peter

Thapkhay (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cabrios.. Oops..I somehow missed your last sentence until after I sent you my note.

I will proceed with a more detailed review and amend things accordingly …indeed specificity, “with respect to the notability criteria I see as being met”,” is an excellent request, and will largely help determine the outcome to my questions.

And.. I will do my best to be more succinct with my list for both our sakes!

Thanks again.

Thapkhay (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Good one Peter! Cabrils (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In starting with a detailed (“specific”) analysis via GNG Notatability criteria (non-trivial Significant Coverage, editorial Reliability, secondary Sources, and Subject Independence), I think the path to updating my draft became quite straightforward for the Page’s subject descriptors, as you suggested (4. July.) The current draft (11. July) reflects my updates, for which the following is noted: (A) For “neuroscience,” only one reference to a 100%-authored work remains ([2], the M.S. thesis, signed by the Thesis Committee at UVM and published by UVM) which is provided for the purpose of context and facilitating verifiability (of its existence and scope); in addition, one 33%-authored work is referenced ([8], with 1 of the 2 co-authors; Glasser, is entirely unaffiliated with both Barth and UVM), provided for the purpose of setting the context to the remaining referenced neuroscience works ([9],[10],[11] are 100% independent)and provide notability in stemming directly from the author’s original findings. (B) Regarding, “author,” all references are now independent of the subject. Notability can now be fully established via WP:AUTHOR’s creative professional categories 2 (via the new concept of “making the mind teachings of Tibet totally accessible to readers, based the Tibet’s most important classical texts and their associated oral instructions“) and/or 3 (similarly via, the first “authoritative presentations, by a westerner, of the most advanced forms of mahamudra and dzogchen, as taught in their most highly-regarded classics and by the associated oral instructions.”) In addition, a significant new notable reference has been provided [Ref. [17] for “author” of Tibetan Buddhism books. Interestingly, it seems Category 2 for authors also may be claimed as an additional basis for notability of the neurophysics thesis and the co-written article, due to “originating” for the general physics community “a significant new theory, model and technique” and “establishing the Ising model and closed Cayley tree models as a noteworthy candidates for neurophysics”, as confirmed in Ref. [11] and which “paved the way for further exact solutions in statistical mechanics” as shown in Ref [10]. (C) Regarding, “engineering and education,” based on a similar analysis, only one item easily meets the notability requirement, which is the award-winning LearningKeys.com web service, developed and offered at no cost by the subject via an innovative use of Internet technologies applied to math education. This section was restored to the Page accordingly, in abbreviated, but notable form based on references [29] and [30]. In summary, I am now feeling the draft is finally there (or, at least, getting close, thanks very much to your help!!) and hope you will agree with that assessment. - Peter

Thapkhay (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Apologies for my belated response.

This is good, we are getting to the nub of it. Firstly, well done again, the amendments are all in the right direction, however I do still have some concerns, which I'll detail below. I am an inclusionist though, so I'm trying to help to see if we can get the draft into acceptable form.

Firstly for clarity, I'll just point out again that I am not the arbiter of right and wrong, I'm just another editor (and reviewer), albeit with more experience than you, but I'm just expressing my interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines based on my experience, so minds may differ. Helpfully, your draft is sitting in the New pages for Review list so it's available for any reviewer to assess and accept (or reject), and, once accepted, pages are perpetually open to amendment as they are not the property of any individual.

OK, so into the details:

-Claim(s) of notability: "neurophysicist, engineer, educator and author specializing in the "mind teachings" of Tibetan Buddhism". So there are 4 claims we're wanting to meet: (A) neurophysicist; (B) engineer; (C) educator ; (D) author specializing in the "mind teachings" of Tibetan Buddhism".

-General Notability Guidelines (GNG): Excellent citing of GNG, which is what each claim of notability in the draft needs to meet: "non-trivial Significant Coverage, editorial Reliability, secondary Sources, and Subject Independence".

(A) neurophysicist: Given its academic field, in addition to GNG, the criteria for meeting notability in neurophysics is WP:NACADEMIC.

While an M.S. thesis is obviously a serious work, for the purposes of establishing notability (as defined) it is not considered reliable.

The citation to the Petaluma Argus Courier (a community weekly newspaper with a circulation of 7400) is informative but really doesn't meet the GNG criteria, certainly not on its own; let alone WP:NACADEMIC. It can however contribute to WP:AUTHOR (discussed below).

Phase transitions for the Ising model on the closed Cayley tree is co-authored by you (thus failing subject independence). The Ising model on a closed Cayley tree appears to only mention you in private correspondence (I didn't access the full article). Cardinality of phase transition of Ising models on closed cayley trees and Highlighting the Structure-Function Relationship of the Brain with the Ising Model and Graph Theory do not cite you. None of these papers are widely cited.

On my reading, none of these references would appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC; and in order to meet the criteria you would need to establish, at least, that your "research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (Criteria#1).

(B) engineer and (C) educator: Your position as adjunct professor in Information Systems Management for the graduate and undergraduate programs at University of San Francisco from 1997 until 2008 carries weight, but does not automatically confer notability (unlike, for example, holding a named professorship chair) so again, on its own does not meet WP:NACADEMIC.

(D) author: As you correctly note, the relevant criteria here is WP:AUTHOR. I feel there is arguably sufficient evidence of notability to meet at least one of the criteria (which is normally established by multiple, substantive, independent book reviews published in reliable publications).

In summary, my advice would be to amend the draft, making the focus of the page your work as an author (for which, as explained, I believe there is arguably sufficient evidence of notability). Your background in neurophysics, engineering and education justify being mentioned but should be trimmed given the reasoning above.

I would reemphasise that none of this is a criticism or belittlement of your achievements Peter, rather that Wikipedia is not a site that hosts CVs like LinkedIn: it is foundered around the principle of notability. It is also worth re-mentioning the justifiable concerns Wikipedia holds for pages drafted by the subject and the inherent issue that entails relating to conflict of interest.

If you are agreeable and amend the draft accordingly, please ping me and I will be happy to re-assess. Cabrils (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent comments/advice and I agree with your assessment, offering only one minor corrective note – the Krizan-Barth-Glasser paper (not alone establishing notability), is referenced directly and prominently at the outset of Berger-Ye’s work and serves as its “spring point” (I discovered a typo in their citation of the author’s name, as is now noted in the reference quote, which is the likely the cause of any oversight on this.)

As recommended, the Page has been updated to deemphasize “neurophysics,” and shift its focus to “author” (incl. by removal of (a) discussion of neurophysics from the introductory section and (b) the neurophysics image and the separate subsection divider.) Also, a reduction to its volume and “CV presentation style” was implemented for it and for the USF professor details under “Engineering and Education.” Finally I collated another repeat reference (as suggested by you in a recent Page edit), one for the original corporate website for the meditation center, still maintained by its members.

I would very much welcome any more thoughts before I click on the resubmit button (and thereby open the floodgates to a wider range of editorial review!)

Thank you very much for your incredibly insightful and helpful guidance. Thapkhay (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well done Peter. I've taken the liberty of making some minor editorial changes that I think help. At this point, if you are happy, please feel free to submit the draft and I will be happy to accept it into mainspace.

As I've previously noted, Wikipedia pages are no one's property so are open to being amended, sometimes radically, by other editors. The page may also be challenged for potentially not meeting various requirements, usually notability (WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR etc) (but for the reasons explained above I believe the draft now meets the relevant requirements). For both these reasons I would encourage you to 'watch' the page and set up alerts on your editing account to send you email notifications of any changes made. I would also encourage you to continue contributing to Wikipedia (especially given your experience (expertise??) in Tibetan Buddhism)--such activity on your account would dispel any potential allegation of a single purpose account, which is an issue you would prefer to avoid, no doubt.

Finally, thank you for your patience and willingness to amend the draft to what I at least feel makes an appropriate and meaningful contribution here--it was worth the effort! Cabrils (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Great advice and edits. Once again, thank you. I also feel that the journey was fully worth the effort, but that it was only possible thanks to your kind patience and to your steadfast commitment to ensuring that the contribution is indeed both “appropriate and meaningful.” My last read feels many miles (or kilometers) closer to achieving that…which also feels “kind of awesome!” Here it goes.., best, Peter

Thapkhay (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. Page accepted. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Resubmitting: Draft:Arctic_Basecamp

Thank you so much for your helpful feedback! I've added a further reference that I think meets all the notability guidelines. I hope that along with one or two other references already there, this shows there are multiple sources that meet all notability guidelines. I know that some of the references don't meet them - for example I have included some links to the charity's own website - but I felt these would still be helpful and informative. Let me know if I should remove these. Thank you again! Roamingbeacons (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your response and thoughts, and my apologies for such a belated reply. I will have a further look at the draft and come back to you. Cabrils (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well done, I think that helped a lot. I have removed 3 references to YouTube as it is not considered a reliable source. Draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Rob Torres (Race Car Driver)

Hello Calibris, Thank you for the feedback on Draft:Rob Torres (Race Car Driver) I added references from multiple racing media websites, I hope this helps. All the best, - Mljj176224 Mljj176224 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, good work. Now you need to format those references correctly: as I wrote in my comment on the draft: "To properly create such a draft page, please see referencing for beginners or the article Easier Referencing for Beginners. Please note that many of the references are not formatted correctly (see Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help)." Please see those linked pages to explain how best to format the references. Let me know when you've done that and I'd be happy to have another look at the draft. Cabrils (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Front Row Insurance

I don't have any connection to the subject, so it is not necessary to declare anything.

Regarding: "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable"... well, I thought there was significant enough coverage, especially after the Rust shooting incident and seeing Front Row Insurance mentioned in the TMZ article (https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/26/rust-insurance-policy-6-million-hutchins-souza/) and other sources referenced in the draft. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what else can be done? Front Row is a company that is significant in the US/Canada film industry. Turner.john60 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your helpful response. I will have more of a look at the draft and come back to you. Cabrils (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've looked again at the draft. As I said in my comment there, the draft needs to meet the criteria set out in WP:NCORP, including:

"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

And

"An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable."

Please peruse WP:NCORP and familiarise yourself thoroughly with the criteria.

Many of the current citations are to sources that are not considered reliable: please see the links I included in my comment. Such unreliable sources include press releases, blogs and self-authored promotional articles.

As a start, please remove all such citations, and then trim the draft accordingly to only include information that is verifiable from reliable sources. The draft currently appears extremely promotional in nature. Simply being "significant in the US/Canada film industry" is not a valid criteria: the draft must meet WP:NCORP.

I trust this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have searched and I don't believe Front Row has received "significant coverage" in the sense of being a profile piece that is focused only on Front Row. The company has received many mentions, however, in various reliable secondary sources over the years. So, based on this, do you think approval is hopeless? Do we need to wait for some big profile piece about Front Row to be published somewhere? Please advise. Turner.john60 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Pages need to meet WP:GNG to justify a page in Wikipedia. So unfortunately you have answered your own question. If Front Row has not received "significant coverage" then it fails the criteria for entry. Perhaps in the future it will become notable so keep an eye out for new reliable sources. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

How about this source? https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/risk-management/news/the-insurance-needs-of-the-toronto-international-film-festival-109962.aspx

It is an article from a reliable source, not a press release, blog, or self-authored. The article focuses on both the Toronto International Film Festival and Front Row, talking about the insurance needs of film festivals. Is this significant enough coverage? Turner.john60 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi John. Even if this article were to be considered reliable and substantive (and I don't really think it is--sure, it's something, but the focus of the article is on TIFF, not Front Row; and to the extent Front Row is mentioned (Front Row's CEO is being asked to comment generally about film insurance) it feels very promotional; and it is not a general news publication but an industry-specific magazine, which reduces the impact).

Those points aside, it is still only one article, and as the criteria clearly state--something you seem to be overlooking (as I have now repeatedly suggested, please peruse the relevant criteria)-- establishing notability requires multiple articles.

Again, I would encourage you to keep researching for more. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Georg Limnaeus

Based on your much appreciated advice on my recent prior accepted submission, I have just completed and submitted a draft for another Page/topic. It is on a minor science history topic (of indisputably zero self-interest, and it was just the first next contribution I could think of) – a rather small gem on a rather historically unknown 16th century German astronomer, someone who used to correspond with younger astronomers, such as Galileo and Kepler.

I would naturally welcome your review (but also am 100% fine just to have it in the normal queue!)

In any case, thought you might enjoy seeing it. Best, PeterThapkhay (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant page Peter! A delight to read, both as a draft page, and an informative biography. Great contribution, top notch, article happily accepted. Cabrils (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your feedback is much appreciated! Thapkhay (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sandy Liang

Hi there! I saw you were active in the Fashion wikiproject and was wondering if you could take a look at a draft I've written about the designer Draft:Sandy Liang. I was very surprised to find that she did not have an article because of her notability and wide coverage in various publications. As a novice contributor I would love your feedback and review. Thanks! Luiysia (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Luiysia, thanks for the ping. The draft looks good to me but I just have a small concern that it may be a bit promotional, but I see your interest in South Korea, feminism etc, which I can see Laing would fall under. Could you just confirm whether you have any conflict of interest?

It seems to me that the appropriate criteria for Liang (beyond WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO) would be WP:CREATIVE. It would be helpful if you could identify, with specificity, which criteria you see the draft meeting? I am by no means a fashion aficionado so your thoughts here would be helpful!

Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

in transit

hi, I am flying back from UD to AUS this weekend and will look to the assignment early next week. sorry for the delay. Cass Cassiopeia talk 01:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the update. No rush at all! Travel safely. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

recent edit to Lazarus (software)

I added a new application to the projects using Lazarus section which was rejected due to being "less than neutral". Not sure why it has been considered less than neutral since it is an open source project similar to the other applications listed. However, I did not clearly mention that it's open source. Was that the reason? If so, good to add it again with mentioning open source? Please advice. LinsErik (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi LinsErik. You edit was flagged as being possible vandalism (because you are a new account, without a use page, and included an external link). I reverted your edit because to me it seemed promotional (I mistakenly sent you a notification saying "less than neutral", which I should have said "promotional") and did not include any reliable source to verify the addition ie there was nothing to back up the claim. I may have been mistaken and it may be a legitimate addition, in which case my apologies (there are a lot spam edits made on Wikipedia by new editing accounts to promote websites). With that information are you now able to clarify those concerns? It would help me assess the edit. Thanks very much. Cabrils (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I had a Wikipedia account at wikipedia.de but this didn't work for wikipedia.com, hence I created a new account here. What would be considered a "reliable source"? At least, I created a user page with short description of myself, just in case. As said, it's an open source project hosted at github done with the Lazarus IDE, so I thought would be good to add it. Might be considered promotional for Lazarus IDE, since it (and other Lazarus users) would benefit from a new application, especially one using modern technology like Bluetooth LE since there do not exist many of those. I should have added "open source" to the description, though. Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks, ER!K LinsErik (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Erik, apologies for this belated reply. I just don't know enough about this kind of software to be authoritative, and you sound sincere, and now clearly not vandalism, so I think just proceed and post your addition and we can leave it to the community. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for getting in touch here. Cabrils (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cabrilis. I added it again. LinsErik (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:OSM Worldwide

Hi Cabrils,

You had recently rejected a draft of one of my articles for the company Draft:OSM_Worldwide. This is a globally syndicated company and the comments on my article were that the references were not from reliable sources. The sources referenced The Smithsonian, Yahoo!, and the Better Business Bureau. I'm looking for a bit of clarity as to what would qualify as reliable sources if these do not - this is one of my first articles and while the comments left on my draft were vague, I'm looking if you could provide some guidance on the right steps to ultimately getting this approved.

Thank you! Veveusi (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Veveusi. Thanks for posting here and following up your draft page Draft:OSM_Worldwide. I might be wrong, but from your post above I suspect you have not read the detailed comment I left on the top of the draft page? In it I include many helpful links that explain what are considered reliable sources, and how best to create your first page. I would encourage you to peruse my comment and the links because I think your questions will be answered there. Of course if you have any more questions please feel free to reply here. Best of luck with it. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mind teachings of Tibet

Encouraged by my last effort on Georg Limnaeus, I spent some time taking up your earlier challenge to see if I could contribute something in my area of Tibetan Buddhist expertise/experience.

It is more lengthy, but rather then pursue explaining the Tibetan views on the nature of mind, I focus on, and navigate, the historically significant new body of knowledge now publicly available in the West to explore that nature.

I would very much welcome your thoughts on this new draft. In any case, Thanks again for helping get this far on my all my efforts!Thapkhay (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peter, good to hear from you. Wow, what a piece, that's very impressive, well done. Right now I have only had time to scan it, and it looks excellent to me. My only thought, and it is a point of which you would be aware, is that the article should be mindful of Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Other than that it appears extremely well researched and relevant. I think you should submit it when you feel comfortable, and I or one of the other reviewers will assess it. Cabrils (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate all the comments! Indeed, some of the written analysis and synthesis (which develops during/from my process of discovery) may make things sound more original than it really is…a revisit of how I express and reference things should help on this, for starter anyways. Since your overall impression was good (yay!), I will spend a few more days tightening it up, and aim also for a crisper and perhaps more trimmed delivery. Hope to submit it soon. Best, Peter Thapkhay (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good Peter. Please let me know when you submit it and I'd be pleased to have a look then. Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Just submitted it, after doing as proposed based on your comments. Thanks once again for your most valuable assistance. Truly appreciated!! Thapkhay (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Good work Peter. Article accepted. Cabrils (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Maggie Grout

Removing page so that the organization page remains the main point of reference.

Draft:Lottie Dalziel

Hello Cabris,

This is my first time writing Wikipedia articles so apologies for any mistakes. I am writing articles on the Australian of the Year award winners for school. Do I need to write that as a COI on top of the articles I write?

Thanks Icarusaxu (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Icarusaxu, good for you! No, you do not have a conflict of interest for that purpose. You've done REALLY well for your first article! I've just accepted it. Feel free to post here on my Talk Page if you have any other draft articles you've submitted and would like me to take a look. Keep up the good work. Cabrils (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cabris,

Thanks for your help. I am working on a new one too - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amar_Singh&action=edit and still researching. Will hope to get some notes from you when it is finished. Thanks Icarusaxu (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Good on you. When the time comes, please create a fresh post on this page (rather than adding to this thread about Lottie Dalziel), just to keep these posts organised and accessible. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Sharpe

I have revised the draft using the Edit command by removing personal info and adding references. Would like to resubmit to you. However, cannot figure out how to save and resubmit draft?? Thnx Sharpe 2600:1000:B15B:7F14:4D26:D3EA:1CF1:FC76 (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the draft page. "Draft: Sharpe" does not exist. Please see Your First Article. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Quark Baby

Hello, Cabrils. I am inviting you to have a second look at my draft article, Draft:Quark Baby. I have addressed the issues you and other reviewers highlighted and I believe the article is ripe for approval. Specifically, I believe I have improved the article to meet the WP:CORP guidelines, established by news coverage articles that address the topic directly and in-depth, and are completely independent of the subject, reliable, and secondary. Several other references have been deliberately excluded on even slight suspicion that they might be sponsored or dependent in some way. Upon establishing notability, I used a primary source (Reference 2: Interview with one of the founders) to verify some information as this is acceptable by the notability guidelines WP:ORGIND. Other references (not used to establish notability) that are reliable, secondary, and independent, have been included too, though their coverage may be trivial as far as WP:CORPDEPTH is concerned. I appreciate your time and advice. See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d, thanks for your post. Well done progressing the draft. I also see you have declared your COI, good work. That's all heading in the right direction, reliable sources are very important, as are the other policies you mention. It would be helpful if you could please list the specific criteria of WP:NCORP you see the draft meeting? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Cabrils, thanks for the speedy response and the positive observations.

I'll be listing the exact criteria I believe the draft meets.

Spoiler alert: I'll be a little detailed (as I think it'll be quite necessary to describe every single criterion independently and how the draft article meets it.

This can possibly mean taking more of your time. I strongly appreciate your support and precious time. My best to you. See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The following is a list of WP:CORP's criteria that I believe the draft article meets. The criteria may not be stated verbatim:

1. The WP:ORGIN states that the decision of whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article is based on existing verifiable evidence that the organization has been noticed by reliable sources unrelated to the organization. This criteria has been met at least eight times by the draft as supported in the references.

2. The primary criteria states that an organization is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The draft has met this criteria at least three (multiple) times through references 1, 3, and 7. The other references mostly fail this test for being trivial mentions even though they may be reliable, secondary, and independent.

• On that note, it meets the criteria's application process because in the three sources, the organization has been covered significantly by directly addressing it and in an in-depth manner. The sources are individually reliable, completely independent of the subject, and secondary.
• By virtue of meeting this process, the draft also meets the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria at least three times because the sources (references 1, 3, and 7) "provide the organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required by this criteria.
• Further, the WP:AUD states that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary to establish notability. This criteria has been met at least once through reference 3 which is a British Columbian regional business magazine. Notice how other references have been intentionally excluded either for not being significant coverage or for not being clear about their audience.
• Alongside these, and nearly concurrently, the sources meet the criteria that require references to be independent, multiple, reliable, and secondary.
• Reference 7 is a products review source and, as such, had to be tested against the criteria for notability of products reviews. The result is that it passed this criteria as it has demonstrated significance  in coverage, independence, and reliability.

That's all I have for now. I may not be perfect in my interpretation of the criteria. On that note, I cordially welcome your guidance and support. See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response, that's all very helpful. Unfortunately you will no doubt find my response disappointing. Because you have a conflict of interest (you are being paid to produce the page), which you properly declared on your Talk page, Wikipedia enforces stricter guidelines about the criteria that should be met. On reading the current draft, my assessment still echos my original comment, and those of the other reviewers. The sources are all very minor publications; some include interviews (which Wikipedia regards as partial and so diminishes their weight toward notability); and are very promotional in nature. The subject, Quark Baby, is a self-described start-up less than 2 years old. For these reasons I would not feel comfortable accepting the draft, as it currently reads, into mainspace. I think it is, amongst other things, too soon. Of course you are welcome to submit the draft for review, but that is my assessment. I would encourage you to add more reliable sources as and when they appear, which will help the draft meet the criteria. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, Cabrils, I respectfully do not agree with you on this. In my opinion, and I'm open to correction, this draft meets the basic WP:NCORP criteria to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. It will only need improvement in future which is a norm for nearly all Wikipedia articles. Please guide me if you can. See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, of course you are entitled to disagree. I have already provided you with quite a lot of guidance, so I will only be repeating what I have already suggested: the draft needs to meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In my view it does not yet meet those criteria. Please re-read my suggestions and comments. If you have any other questions I would encourage you to visit the Teahouse. Best of luck with it. Cabrils (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's okay. I appreciate your support all along. See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Question and thoughts on Amar article

Morning Cabris,

I was wondering if I could get your review of a new article I wrote for Amar Singh. Amar Singh (humanitarian)

I was also wondering, I had a photo for him that I uploaded, I got it from his website. If I emailed him and asked permission to use the photo in Wikipedia would that then be allowed in the article? And if so would there be a good way to upload it?

Thanks Icarusaxu (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Icarusaxu. The first thing I would say is that I encourage you to create a User Page. which will make communicating with you much more efficient.

Well done on creating the page Amar Singh (humanitarian). Since it has been accepted (by GMH Melbourne, who has a curious account) it has already passed a primary assessment. I would encourage you to continue to expand any pages you create, as over time more information and reliable sources may appear.

Regarding uploading images: you should find answers to your questions on the WP:UPIMAGE page, including details around copyright permissions, which Wikipedia takes seriously.

Keep up the good work! Cabrils (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Resonex

Thank you for your thoughtful review and feedback regarding my draft for a page on Resonex, Inc.; I have corrected references, and clarified the text to make its notability more clear. I have no conflict of interests; I had learned about it in the 1980s through a friend who worked there, and I believe that its story is a worthwhile footnote in the creation of GE Healthcare. Johnlogic (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Johnlogic. Thanks for getting in touch. Well done on those edits, that's all heading in the right direction. I see you have been around for some time so I can safely assume you have good knowledge of the notability requirements for draft articles to be accepted into mainspace. My concerns with the draft are that the only (arguably) reliable sources are the 3 articles from Diagnostic Imaging, which I feel are (1) simply routine news updates about a routine company; and (2) only come from the single source: so for both reasons do not establish the level of notability required to meet the relevant criteria in my view (WP:NCORP). For these reasons I would not feel comfortable accepting the draft in its current form. I would encourage you to keep looking for more reliable sources, at which time please add them and post a note here and I'd be happy to have another look. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Edward Hayter

Hello, its been a while but i got to improve it a lot. I know he still doesnt have significant coverage in an article yet but ive been trying to email medias to get him into articles. I only write to ask if it is well written, have not the intention to submit it until i get medias to write about him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Hayter# Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Good for you and yes that looks like a big improvement from where the draft was. The best place to find help would be Help:Your first article and the Teahouse. Best of luck with it. Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

thank you! Veganpurplefox (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cabrils (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cabrils, I took the liberty to make improvements to this draft and I believe it now passes WP:ANYBIO. It has already been submitted for review. We might want to possibly title the article Ed Hayter since most of the sources refer to him as such, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Only formal credits have listed his full name. Please let me know your thoughts and your review, thank you. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC).

But all of the reliable sources has been removed incliding all his career section and has non reliable sources that i had to take down that now has been added back. He has no articles eith significant coverage. Veganpurplefox (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

can we unsubmit it as well as bringing back the last content,every sources reliable has been removed and has no reviews Veganpurplefox (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Veganpurplefox, I carefully reviewed and read your version of the draft prior to my editing – significant portions of it would not be considered encyclopaedic in tone and style of the writing; several of the statements were direct translations of fr:Edward Hayter, but even the French Wikipedia article is not entirely reliably sourced; please see WP:Puffery and WP:Verifiability. Please also note that reviews of shows and movies are not reliable sources for a biography on an actor starring in them, but can be considered reliable sources for articles on the shows and movies themselves.

The draft in its current form establishes the subject's notability in deserving an article on Wikipedia as per WP:ANYBIO. All the sources chosen also verify the claims being made to establish said notability. This is the main focus of Articles for Creation – to establish notability and reason for inclusion within Wikipedia to begin with and not present complete and full articles (that will come much later). I hope this explanation is sufficient, thank you and kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC).

I translated the English to French and French don't have same rules as English and it was accepted. I did not translated from French to English. Even other articles such as Jamie Campbell Bower contains movie reviews and it's like that to all other articles I have read. The times, deadlines, BBC, what's on stage...are all reliable sources that I included Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Veganpurplefox, yes it is true that an actor's performance reviews are significant within a specific context within their articles, but please note that we are trying to establish Ed Hayter's notability in this instance; a performance review, good or bad, confers no extra notability on the subject or credibility to the article other than being an extra verifiable source that he was on that show.

I have presently used more contextually appropriate sources that are direct to verify and establish his notability, and if the draft is accepted into main space, you or any other editor can expand on the subject's career as long as the writing style is not WP:Puffery or using WP:Peacock terms which was the problem with the draft in its previous state quoting all the performance reviews. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC).

Ok, but why are all reviewers dont agrees with the same things. Some told me everything was fine with those sources, some says tv guide and rotten tomatoes cannot be used as they are supposed primary sources... why everyone dont agrees with the sources, it gets so confusing and complicated Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Like if everyone could agree with what can or cannot be used that would help everyone trying to edit or create articles Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Veganpurplefox, yes, that is the tricky state of Wikipedia, unfortunately. It has taken me quite some years to get the hang of it and even I am still learning (for example: primary sources can be used to verify facts but not establish notability, and many such examples). I encourage you to read up on the rules and ask questions at the WP:Tea house. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC).

I use tea house a lot actually, and where are the rules? Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

So basically once its accepted i can add everything back? Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Another question, we cant add everything from those reviews that writes about him. Like it has to be minimum infos? Veganpurplefox (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Before you explained i added back the career but kept it minimal, is it okay this way or should be removed then when it is approved i will add it back? Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alan D. Gaff

Cabrils thanks for looking at the draft I was working on. I think I understand what you are after (the publishers website is not independent for an author). Anyway, I put some sources on the talk page at Draft talk:Alan D. Gaff#Notablity as you suggested.

~~~~9/20/2023 poodledrool

Poodle drool (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. Yes, please add those sources to the draft, they help.

Also, I would encourage you to create a User Page, it makes communicating much more efficient.

Do you have a conflict of interest that should be declared, like being paid to create the page? Cabrils (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cabrils and dear Poodle drool, I hope you are both doing well. I was reading through and about some of this subject's books recently and was about to start a stub article on them when I came across this draft, and your recent review of it. If you, and the initial author, Poodle drool, do not mind, I would like to take over the draft. I am happy to leave you a note to have a look of it before I move my stub to the main space (I am afraid I am not an AfC reviewer, and so I do not have the reviewer tools). I eagerly await both of your thoughts! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC).

Spinster300 that would be great. I am still figuring out parts of wikipedia and having someone with more skills to take it over would be awesome. If your interest is Civil War/Iron Brigade it looks like Alan Nolan also needs a page. Poodle drool (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Poodle drool, I am happy to take a look at the draft later today and reformat it into a better article; the sources you have left on the draft's Talk page might be useful.

Please note that Cabrils has gently asked you to disclose any connection you may have with this subject – a connection such as knowing them intimately as a friend, student, colleague, or relative in real life or being paid or hired to edit MUST be disclosed – so please, kindly disclose it if you have one. A simple note on your Talk page is sufficient.

I shall also look into Alan T. Nolan. Please kindly remember to specify the middle name initial for disambiguating the military historian when mentioning the subject in discussions, since Alan Nolan is the Irish hurler, and Google searches for "Alan Nolan books" initially brought up the Irish children's author on my end. Please disclose if you have any connection with this subject as well.

NB: Simply being a reader or having studied any of their books, or having attended a public event such as a talk or lecture by these subjects, usually does not violate conflict of interest rules on Wikipedia. On the contrary, it makes you a passionate editor since you have an active interest in the subject and that is most welcome!

Looking forward to your reply, kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC).

Thank you. I will do these things--conflict of inteterst statement, make userpage after Cabrils recommendation, etc.--after the weekend. Poodle drool (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Poodle drool, thank you very much! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC).

Absolutely Spinster300! I'd be very happy to have a look and assess it, especially given I am now tuned in. Look forward to hearing from you. Cabrils (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cabrils, wonderful! I shall ping you here when I have finished reformatting the draft later today. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC).

Dear Cabrils, I have made my improvements to the draft and await your thoughts on it. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC).

Spinster300 Great job, well done. There's obviously lots of room for expansion, but that draft passes the acceptance criteria, so please submit it and I will approve it. Thanks for the collaboration. Cabrils (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cabrils, I have resubmitted the draft for review as per your request. Please let me know if there are any other Articles for Creation drafts you would like me to take a look at over the weekend; I usually incline towards biographies. Would love to have an ongoing collaboration with you on this WikiProject! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC).

Great. Article accepted.

Excellent! I would be delighted to collaborate with you and will ping you some draft biographies when I find some suitable ones, although I can't guarantee that it will be over this weekend. I will be in touch. Cabrils (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Cabrils, thank you so much! I look forward to working with you. For the time being – and with your permission, I will go through the drafts mentioned thus far on your talk page here, and improve them where I can. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC).