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.
Hi,
Is there a simple way to revert to a prior edit? See, e.g., my recent entry on the Talk page for "Trustee".
Thanks! --Al Begamut (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Al Begamut: if you go into the 'view history' menu of the page, it shows the entire edit history, ie. each time the page was saved. You have two or three options, depending:
Click on the timestamp of the edit you wish to restore, which will display the page as it was at that save. Near the top of the page there will be a link that says [restore this version]; click on that, and it will be restored.
On each row in the edit history (at the end of the row) there will also be an (undo) link, which undoes that particular edit. This usually works best for the latest or at least a recent edit; once the edit has been edited further, it usually cannot be undone this way anymore (still worth a try; the system will tell you if it can't be done).
If you wish to undo a number of edits by the same user, and if these are the most recent edits in the history, you may be able to 'roll back' all of them with a single click, but only if you have the rollbacker user right.
Moi @IkuTurisas: I'd say it's... borderline. If you want, I can give it the benefit of the doubt, and accept it, but I will not patrol it myself, so someone from NPP will do that and they may well send it back to drafts or request deletion. Is that what you would like me to do? Alternatively, you can continue to look for better sources (even just one more solid source that indubitably meets WP:GNG could tip the scales) and play it safe(r). Let me know? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd prefer if you simply accepted it, however if you do think it is THAT bad, then it's truly your choice. However I feel as if it meets the criteria, so I'd like it accepted. IkuTurisas (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft Duplicate??
Hi There, just regarding the Natalia Albert article page - what do you mean there is a Duplicate page for review? I have only put forward one page for review. Shako18 (talk) 11:54 , 4 september 2023 (UTC)
@Shako18: sorry, my mistake; I didn't mean to say that there's another draft, but that the same has already been published in the main article space, at Natalia Albert. It seems that right after you had submitted your sandbox draft, you went ahead and created the article. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Syed Hassan Jafari
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Youtuber777786 (talk) 8:43 am, Today (UTC−4)Reply
it's not basically promoting someone it's an biography of an actor and nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youtuber777786 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't work like that. If I request speedy deletion, an administrator will come by to take a look, and either delete or not. The evidence is the page itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I wish to contribute to your entry on Nick Kyrgios. The extended section called public perception is excessively long and badly organised, includes repetitions, personal opinions, outdated views, and does not include much material past 2019. There is a box requesting help with editing this section. I am an experienced editor and tennis enthusiast as well as Australian journalist. Can I proceed? --SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Double Grazing. I have never edited anything before but when I joined Wiki I was given your handle as a 'mentor' so I presumed you had offered yourself as one! Sorry about that. The section is 2400 words long and is a terrible mess. It looks like an itemised exaggerated list of fines and misdemeanours committed by this elite sportsperson, mostly before 2019. Many other prominent players have also received fines for similar issues but none of their entries list these. I presume therefore that this entry is inequitable. Is it okay to simply remove it or summarise it? Will another person get angry? I don't want to upset people but the entry is terrible! SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@SueoftheAntipodes: oh okay, yes, I am a mentor. Still have no involvement with the Kyrgios article, but now I know how you found me! :)
As explained in WP:CYCLE (which is worth reading, BTW, if you haven't yet), you are encouraged to boldly make any edits you feel will improve Wikipedia. If someone objects and reverts your edit(s), you are then encouraged to discuss this matter to seek consensus (rather than start an edit war!), ideally on the article's talk page where the discussion may be seen and joined by the wider community, or on the other editor's own talk page if it's more of personal nature.
No one should get angry or upset at any well-intentioned edit, and especially not in the case of a new editor.
In any case, no one 'owns' an article, and everyone has equal rights to edit, so don't feel intimidated by some self-appointed 'guardian' of an article.
Having said all that, if you're going to make very big changes, especially if you're going to remove (rather than rewrite) a lot of content, you will draw the attention of anyone actively watching that page, so you can probably expect to face some questions or even pushback. Therefore, to pre-empt that and to ensure that your proposed edits meet with the community consensus, you may wish to start a discussion on the article's talk page before your edits, outlining what you plan to do and inviting opinions. (What exactly counts as "very big changes" or "a lot of content", I don't know.)
Thanks so much. I will try not to bother you further. I attempted to change a few sentences but the only edits allowed were 'edit source' not edit material. So I put this on the talk page:
Hi. The section on Reputation is 2240 words long. It is extremely confused, contains emotive and judgemental language unsuitable to a Wiki entry, duplicates and omits important details and emphasises issues that occurred earlier in Kyrgios's career. Much of the worst instances occurred before 2019. They are scarcely relvant but are still being held against him because of your entry. I have 21 years experience as a careers and education journalist, editor and writer as well as understanding tennis and being a supporter of all young players, including Australians. We need to fix up this section. Please can I help. Also, I would like to suggest a new section, Kyrgios in popular culture and media influence. This is because in recent years a number of in-depth studies have been carried out by career sports analysts in magazines like Racquet, GQ, Esquire and New Yorker as well as Weekend Magazine which shed new light on what has influenced Kyrgios. The effect of racism is finally emerging and we can instance the many infamous cartoons which no other country would have been allowed to publish, which exaggerate his features as a person of colour. His role in the Break Point series should be highlighted including his many quotes - also its effect on him and other players. Kyrgios was assessed as the third highest sports influencer in Australia this year despite not playing. His role in starting important conversations which lead to change in sport cannot be underestimated. There are many basic facts which are quite wrong or omitted. The writers have continually stressed negatives while omitting positives. His major role in the 2017 Davis Cup tie against the USA is not there. This sort of omission while repeating behavioural issues is unbalanced. Can I help restore the balance in line with the other current players who have also been disqualified from tournaments? These include Zverev, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Paire, Fognini, Djokovic and Ymer. None of their entries mention fines, disqualifications or behavioural issues. All have glowing reports of their abilities as great players. At present, Nick's entry is unreadable. It is unwieldy and appears to be written with agendas of negativity. I am sure this is not true as you are all volunteers of good intent. However, so many young tennis players are now having to take time off - or leave the sport entirely - because of serious depression and distress due to media, social media and professional pressure that there is no necessity to over emphasise poor behaviour in a rapidly changing sport. This year, without Kyrgios, has seen the worst behaviour on tour ever as noted by many professional commentators. Please advise how I can best edit or provide copy for a greater improvement. Kind regards. SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you think that is too harsh? I believe something has to be done. The article misrepresents a young athlete who has millions of 'fans' around the world and an equal number of 'haters'. He has been driven to suicidation and self-harm by relentless hate as have thousands of other high achievers and we have a responsibility to put this in perspective. Kyrgios now tries to use his immense influence to grow the sport and make people think but entries like this hold his efforts back.
@SueoftheAntipodes: I don't really know enough about the topic to be able to offer much advice. I think posting that on the article talk page is perfectly okay, it's not 'harsh', and in any case you're not attacking another editor, only criticising the way the article is currently written.
Just bear in mind that seeking to correct a bias or POV can mean introducing a different one. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia articles are (or rather, should be) written by summarising what reliable and independent published sources have said, and by ensuring that more than one source is used. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I tried editing as you suggested by deleting a whole section which was about fines and controversies which were mostly more than three years old and often eight or ten. They were gone for a few days but returned without comment this morning. How do I know why my deletions were reinstated? I gave the reason. The section was distinctly marked as too long and detailed. SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@SueoftheAntipodes: yes, that is quite a common response to large edits or content removal, I'm afraid. I can see that you left great notes with your edits, it's just a pity that the IP editor who reverted didn't do the same, but unfortunately not everyone plays by the same rules. (I've left a message on their talk page to explain why notes are important.) You could (not saying you should; only that you could) revert their reversion, but if they do it again it could end up in an edit war which is not in anyone's interests. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. I can see why nobody bothers to update or change some pages. I have amassed a large number of sources on tennis in Australia and around the world over ten years and have a fair working knowledge of the individual players' careers. There are now a large number of notices on top of the chat page which I can't understand and I've gone to the sandbox to try working out how to do stuff with new source material but I guess the editors are stuck in the 2019 mode (pre-Covid) and aren't interested in the many studies that have gone on since. I am too discouraged to continue. They have the most basic facts wrong! They say Kyrgios is inactive. He is one of many players rehabbing to begin again in January. I have no personal connection with the players concerned. Am only interested in correcting and updating. So I'll probably leave it to them. Most Kyrgios supporters are not interested in this. It will be conservative coaches who are being perjorative. SueoftheAntipodes (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
hello 👋
I'm a culture and conservation photographer from Kerala who is currently focusing on the culture of North Malabar of Kerala.
I ha submitted an article on kaniyal Bagavathi. you guys have rejected saying lack of reference.
these information has been passed through generations by word of mouth. there is no published article available as of now.
I have submitted photos taken during the performance. that photos are taken by me. 8bit monk (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Your draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean it cannot be resubmitted), only declined (which means it can, once you have addressed the decline reasons).
Please don't just resubmit something after it has been declined; you need to rectify the issues highlighted, otherwise it will eventually get rejected.
I appreciate that oral tradition may not have been originally documented, but if it is noteworthy enough it eventually will be. The Ramayana and the Kalevala both began as oral narratives, AFAIK, but there is certainly plenty of literature on both.
In any case, we cannot accept material which isn't verifiable from reliable sources. Not only that, but we cannot accept material which isn't based on multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The test of notability, which determines whether a topic is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, is laid out in WP:GNG.
I worked on the Draft:Stefan_Raunser, taking in consideration your previous comments. Would be great if you could re-review the draft. Thanks. LA285306 (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Omaha Club
Thank you for reviewing the draft for "Omaha Club".
I was trying to start a new page on this topic to contrast it with two other existing pages:
1. "Omaha Athletic Club"
2. "Omaha Country Club"
These were three prominent social clubs of the late 19th and early 20th century, but a page hadn't existed yet for "Omaha Club".
Would you please advise me as to how to make "Omaha Club" equivalent to the other two submissions mentioned above?
Hi @Cheyhart: I was at two minds about this; I suspect this probably is notable, I just couldn't ascertain it from the sources cited, or from the way the sources are cited. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple (= usually interpreted as three or more) independent and reliable secondary sources. Of the sources that are there, #1 and #3 are the same, #2, #5 and #6 don't look (*) as if they're likely to provide significant coverage, and #4 is described as a photo archive. So I was left with no source that categorically meets the GNG standard.
(*) It's of course perfectly possible that one or more of these (sources #2, #5 and #6) actually do give significant coverage, but in that case, please provide more details such as page numbers (obviously 'pp. 10-18' is more significant than just 'p. 10'), and perhaps a short quote to give the reviewer an idea of what the source says about the subject. And if you can find online versions of these sources, so much the better.
I believe the article is ready for another look. Perhaps you can give feedback where you think it is needed? Thank you very much. Steenblikrs (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Was Wondering if These Articles Would be of Interest for Improving
Hi! Thank you for reviewing the draft and giving concrete suggestions. I have added several new reliable sources as requested and I believe everything should be now corrected - please let me know if that is not the case! :)
p.s. sorry for potential spamming, since I am not quite sure did my resubmission and the attached message reach you or not - so I wanted to thank you for the review and comments! TrueMusic4Finland (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Moi @TrueMusic4Finland: I don't normally like to re-review drafts, but this is quite a straightforward acceptance, so I'll go and do that now. Good job coming up with such solid sources! I will need to add a couple of [citation needed] tags, though, because it's a WP:BLP, so when you get a chance could you please add cites where indicated. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 58
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023
To me it looks like loads of trivial edits to get EC status, to be followed by a rampage. Dot recognise then as a sock, but we have cupboards full of tho. Added a permalink to the warnings to the report.
Hi I made an article about myself and it was deleted. I saw the notification that it can be moved back to sandbox for editing and may that be. Zelly Zel (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@Zelly Zel: I didn't delete your draft, I only requested its deletion. I cannot restore it, as I'm not an admin. You can ask the admin who deleted it, but you need to have a good reason why it should be restored. Note that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, so if that's what you're doing, you're unlikely to get the draft back. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: I actually don't think it will need G13'ing; if/when the other draft is accepted, we can just replace the earlier one with a redir.
From the editing point of view, it's probably easier for the author to write their own copy rather than take over someone else's and merge new content and sources into it.
That said, I've not looked at either version in detail, so don't know which is 'better', if there's such a thing. I seem to remember the new version has more content and sources, but could be wrong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I have a question regarding a draft of Alia Azamat Ashkenazi article (Draft:Alia Azamat Ashkenazi). You say YouTube is an unreliable source, what if it is a recording of a broadcasted interview, tv film (documentary in the case of Alia that aired and there is no other way to proof that source other than the news outlet/media's youtube archive). An Amazon link to an aired podcast interview is also not good? Would an Apple Podcast link work? All the "website" links provided are not posted on behalf or by the subject, they are posted on official social media channels of the news/media outlets, it requires editorial input because the people posting are posting on behalf of registered press, they are also posting the existing published (aired) materials. Akella8877 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I am publishing this Wiki as Mr CP Nair's son. He retired as the highest administrative role as Chief Secretary Government of Kerala. The very fact that he got obits from all leading media indicates he was a person of importance including condelences from the Chief Minsiter. He had the unique distinction of working with 7-8 Chief Ministers in his career.
Whatever information is published, is based on actual facts. if you want his degree certificates i can send soft copies. Also you dont become Chief Secretary in a single day, after through multiple levels. References published included government links, which you havent even considered
It's not about understanding the context, it's about whether the subject is notable, as defined in the Wikipedia context. "Importance", "unique distinctions", and "condolences from the CM" are not what we're looking for.
"Soft copies" aren't required; we need to see published (ideally secondary) sources which are reliable and independent of the subject.
And lastly, given that you are his son, you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI), which you must formally disclose before editing further. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
These are some of his peers who were even lesser importance and are published on wiki
When i reference notable media you say, its a press release, when i publish authoritative GOVERNMENT sources you say its not reliable. when i publish other library archives etc you say its not reliable.
As i suggest it needs to be reviewed by someone from Kerala who can understand the importance of a person. and fyi a chief secretary is ttop most ranked official in a state and if that is not notable i am not sure what is.
Can you please give specific guidance about the areas for the article that require improvement?
In particular, notability - the subject concerned has been hold a significant appointment with references including the Gazette of Royal Household and the UK Government.
Firstly, the draft seems to be a substantial copyright violation, so that's obviously one thing you must avoid in the future.
Secondly, notability per WP:GNG requires independent and reliable secondary sources. The position of a L/L is not considered inherently notable, as it isn't elected, and is a local rather than national role.
Also, every claim you make about a living person must be supported by a reliable source. I'm guessing from your username that you have a relationship with this subject, and you probably know a lot about them that hasn't been published anywhere, but you cannot use such information; everything must be verifiable from external sources.
And on that point about your relationship, you need to disclose this, as detailed in the message I posted on your talk page, titled 'Managing a conflict of interest'. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Please let me know where the copyright violation comes from. I wrote the article myself, with no plagiarism from a source written by any other party.
The position of a Lord-Lieutenant is not local - it is a national position, and persons appointed as such are directly and personally appointed by HM The King and represent him.
I have added external verifiable sources (not plagiarised) from The Royal Gazette and Who's Who, and news outlets including Grampian Online and The Press and Journal. Can you advise what further external verifiable sources would be appropriate? Again, this is an article written to be in the same style and depth as that of the previous Lord-Lieutenant, so I am unsure what more needs to be added to address copyright and notability issues. LWSimpson (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@LWSimpson: you can see the copyvio report here: [2]. How would you explain the 76.3% similarity with this source?
And yes, L/L is a local role, given that the appointment is for each Lieutenancy area, of which there are c. 100. But be that as it may, there is no policy (that I'm aware of, at least) which states that the position makes the appointee automatically notable. If you know of such a policy, please point to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Double Grazing, thanks for taking time over the issues with the article. Can I just confirm that although the L-L is assigned a local area, i.e. Banffshire in this case, the actual appointment is a national level. This procedure involves the Cabinet Office, and in the case of Scottish Lord-Lieutenants, the Scottish Office; it is appointed directly by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The reference for this is online: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/process-for-the-appointment-of-lord-lieutenants
@LWSimpson: I think we're probably done here. You ask for "clarification", but when I try to clarify you don't want to hear it, you just want to argue every point. It doesn't seem there's much I can do to help, so let's leave it there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that Double Grazing. However, I hope I have given a clear account of the role and appointment procedure; and explained where the article comes from. I still don't know why this particular Lieutenancy article is not acceptable compared to to others including that of the immediate predecessor, Clare Nancy Russell. LWSimpson (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
