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.
It appears that you have a personal issue with me. The article is properly sourced and is notable for wikipedia just like the articles regarding other Toyota transmissions that were created 2 decades ago. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@12DionneJ: I've already told you, publish it yourself if you're so sure that it complies with policy. Just beware that if it subsequently gets deleted, that will not only be the end of the road for this copy, it will make it considerably more difficult to recreate the article as the deletion will count against it.
Now, please stay away from my talk page. I already said I don't care for the insults, which you subsequently went on to repeat regardless, or for that matter for your tendentious approach. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Jotform Sign Draft
Hi DoubleGrazing. I've just noticed that the page I created for Jotform Sign was deleted today. Actually it had been drafted about a month ago and I had just provided my reasoning to that editor. Since I didn't receive any response from that person, I proceeded with re-submission without any changes, and it got immediately deleted. But please see the response that I sent to other editor before making your final call. I believe that the topic is notable enough and should be reinstated but I respect to your decision and look forward to do as you say. Best regards,
First of all, sorry the late response. I see your point as the article doesn't seem to contain too many independent resources. However, I was unable to provide them within the article because that way the article might have seemed more of a press release, which is also not allowed.
Let me try to explain it a little bit more. Jotform Sign is already regarded as a valuable tool by respectable aggregator websites like G2. You can even see Jotform Sign in top 5 in E-signature software category. As you know, G2 is a major review aggregator website and their ratings are taken very seriously by millions of people.
Thus, with all due respect, I'd like to say that this item is notable enough and kindly ask you to reinstate the article. If you have any more questions or would like me to make more additions accordingly, I'd be happy to proceed. Thanks. Tamburello (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Tamburello: whether or not Jotform Sign is notable (and factors like being a top-5 e-signature tool are absolutely not the way this is determined), promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia, and Draft:Jotform Sign was G11-speedied as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not think it's promotional - I don't know how you can promote something if nobody searches for it and cannot find it - but I guess there is nothing I can do about it right now. Tamburello (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
PS: Ah, seems I hadn't rated the bank one; I have now. Both came in at 'B or better' according to the rater tool, which I tend to just accept as a matter of course. Hope that's okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi DoubleGrazing,
I just saw the rating! I swear they didn't pop up before. I was referring to the content assessment rating i.e. B-class, C-class. Thanks a lot though! Sorry for the inconvenience. Again, thanks a lot for the incredible review speed! Daftation🗩🖉21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Barnstar for you!
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
Speed of light draft review speed. Keep it up! Hopefully more than those two of my drafts will be reviewed by you in the future. Daftation🗩🖉21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Gaganyaan-4
Hello! How are you?
Way back in 2022 you helped me with Portugal Space, and now I've created the Draft:Gaganyaan-4. It is waiting to review, and a user commented on what seems to be a literal interpretation of the word "TOO SOON" - and, as an example, the article already has more sources than Shenzhou 18. As I understand, if there are independent sources, doesn't matter if the event will happen more than a year in the future, or articles like Polaris Dawn, Boeing Crewed Flight Test and even the Artemis missions couldn't have possible be accepted. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Erick Soares3: the WP:TOOSOON argument usually is invoked when the subject looks like it might be notable, but the sources to ascertain this simply don't exist (at least not yet). I haven't looked at the sources in this draft, but the editor who made the TOOSOON comment seems to think the sources are actually there, so that may not be a problem. What could still be a problem is the related concern of WP:CRYSTALBALL, which says that we shouldn't speculatively write about things that may or may not happen, because we live in an uncertain world and many things were planned, even "guaranteed to happen", which in the end didn't come to pass. That doesn't mean that no such topic could warrant an article, some are notable despite not having happened, others may indeed be notable precisely because they didn't happen (an example might be the Garden Bridge proposal for London). These considerations aren't always clear-cut, but the better your sources, and the more likely something is to happen, the stronger the arguments are against TOOSOON and CRYSTALBALL, respectively. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! In the case of Gaganyaan-4, for much it might be delayed (like Artemis 2, the Crewed Starliner Flight and Polaris Dawn), but it will happen (there's a clear political will for it and the reveal of the "Gaganyaan Corps" supports it - is not sumething that the media only speculated and the Indian government never said anything about). For much, I think that I've messed up by sending it to Draft: the Indian crewmembers were direct sent to the main space and an army of editors worked continuously to develop their bios. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Erick Soares3: regarding your comment "I think that I've messed up by sending it to Draft:", just so we're clear, this has not been declined at AfC, and perhaps it won't; could be that it gets accepted at the first review.
You don't have to go through AfC, you have extended confirmed status so you could just publish this directly yourself, or indeed move it to the main space now, if you wanted.
Either way, since you don't have autopatrolled status, NPP will review whatever you publish, and they apply essentially the same standards as AfC does, so if there is a problem with notability then they would just send it back to drafts anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Zurolo surname (draft)
Dear reviewer, I will also reply here on your personal wall, I will proceed to improve my draft in progress, I will do my best to improve the article, I therefore ask you to let me know in the coming days and months if the sources and parts of text that I wrote, in the ''external links'', are fine. Already a few days ago I took the liberty of quoting a famous Italian encyclopedia, the Treccani institute, where the surname and name Zurlo is also described in the Venetian dialect, verified and cited with a note in the appropriate paragraph. I also noticed a page in which he appears only with the name of Zurlo, well here there are only a few personalities mentioned, I took the liberty of inserting a quote template with a reference to my draft in progress, how do you think my work is going now ? Thanks in advance for your reply. Kind regards. --GiovAngri (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear reviewer, I have done my best to enrich this draft in preparation with content, I therefore ask you before reviewing it again if any other changes need to be made, which will be indicated to me on my personal noticeboard or needs further consideration, cordially.--GiovAngri (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 61
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
I noticed the redirect for Vastustamaton has been deleted, so can you approve my article about the album please? Thanks! PunchboxNET (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am having difficulty understanding how to insert a footnote in an article. I read Wikipedia:Footnote4 but it doesn't come across as very helpful, and I tried to implement what it says but it didn't work for me.
I want a little hyperlinked "note 1" that pulls up a text block (e.g., as in the "Allied combatants" infobox section of "Allies of World War II") ... can you point me to a guide or just tell me what to type to most simply get this result?
FYI, the article I intend to edit is "Pod corn" and the note will go after the phrase "mutation at the Tunicate locus".
OK, I found a different example of how to do what I wanted (in An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists), so I think I got it. If you get a chance, any feedback regarding this edit (to "Pod corn") would be appreciated. Thanks! Al Begamut (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Al Begamut: there are a few ways of doing that, each with slightly different use-cases. If I've understood you correctly, you may be looking for the {{efn}} template, which produces 'explanatory footnotes'. Basically, you enter your note content inside the efn template (eg. {{efn|your text goes here}}), and then place the {{notelist}} tag wherever you want the footnote to appear. There are various options for customising this, which you can see at the {{efn}} template page. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Blanche McCrary Boyd, and there are inaccuracies as well as stupidities in the article about me. For instance, I am retired as the Weller Professor of English and Writer in Residence at Connecticut College. --BlancheBoyd (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay... what would you like me to do about that? If there are erroneous or contentious claims which are not supported by reliable sources, those should be identified and either supported appropriately or else removed, of course.
However, if you are indeed who you say you are, you have a conflict of interest, which firstly needs to be disclosed (see WP:COI), and secondly means you should not edit the article yourself but instead make edit requests via the article talk page using the {{Edit COI}} template.
Hello again. As I said, I am revising the page about me since it has several inaccuracies, some important omissions, and also it is poorly written. Here's a question I need helps with:
How do I do italics in my revision? I am rewriting the entry a bit (no puffery, I promise), and I assume I'm a source since, well, I am the subject?? --BlancheBoyd (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@BlancheBoyd: you are not the source, you are the subject. All your edits must be supported by references to reliable published sources, otherwise they are likely to be reverted. In a sense, it doesn't matter whether something is true and correct; what matters is whether it can be supported by a reliable published source.
If you're editing the raw text source (as opposed to using the 'visual editor', which I couldn't help you with as I never use it myself), you create italics by enclosing the text inside double ' marks (by which I mean, 2 x single quotation marks, not one double quotation mark), such as here: ''sample text'' renders sample text.
Hi DoubleGrazing....Thanks for explaining. I will ask Harlan Greene, the (retiring this month) Special Collections Librarian at the College of Charleston, to address the problems I am seeing with the entry Wikipedia currently has on me. Harlan keeps an archive of my work at the College. Also I will copy my letter to him to Laura Micham, Director of the Sallie Bingham Center for Women's History and Culture at Duke University, where my papers through 1984 are now stored. Wikipedia used to have a fairly decent entry on me, but what's there now reads like a B paper in a sophomore class. I'm wondering if y'all are using AI to write this stuff now. I hope not!
@BlancheBoyd: ha! We are increasingly busy fighting AI-based contributions, and certainly not encouraging them. I think the problem is rather that too may cooks sometimes spoils the broth. One of the main strengths of Wikipedia – that anyone can edit more or less anything – is also sometimes one of its weaknesses. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Akaayu: Hello, do you beleive the this university are notable under WP:NCORP I do not comfortable to review again because We do not review draft on request behalf by the author of page, so, please carefully read the DoubleGrazing's usertalkpage notice and my usertalkpage notice also.😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk)13:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Akaayu: Hmmm... really you know this university are notable under WP:NCORP and I do not think all institutions/university are notable if they runned by state government and If they really notable then why they're not give approval of this article by other reviewers except me or DoubleGrazing?. 🤔~~ αvírαm|(tαlk)15:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate why is it always getting refused. It's merely stating facts with no advertising tone whatsoever! What can I do for it to get published? I have been trying for two weeks now to publish it and I edited many times.
@Mohamedmarzz: have you read any of the decline notices? They make it quite clear what is needed. To wit, we need to see (per WP:NCORP) significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Merely 'stating facts' is not enough, there must be some reason to include this subject in a global encyclopaedia; just existing is not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Karl Lagerfeld follow-up
Hello, DoubleGrazing. Thank you for your detailed feedback on my Karl Lagerfeld (brand) draft.
I understand that a full review of the draft will take time, but I did want to let you know that I responded to your request for 3-5 strong sources that focus specifically on the brand as a corporate entity. (There's no shortage of such examples.) Please let me know what you think and thanks again for your assistance here. MB for KARL LAGERFELD (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear DoubleGrazing. Thank you for your feedback on my my draft about Ole Skovsmose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ole_Skovsmose. I have been working on this since last year, and I would be glad to have your collaboration in making the text good enough to be finally published.
On February 1st, you wrote this comment: “The sources cited are almost entirely (co-)authored by the subject, whereas we need to know where this information is coming from. For the same reason, I'm also not at all sure of notability, but leaving that to a later review”.
So, the educator I write about is very important for Mathematics Education, with great notoriety. And to address the points you mentioned, I added information about an international collaborative project and a book, also internacional, that mentions Ole Skovsmose as the more important theorist in the development of a concept. I already made these changes in the last topic “Theoretical contributions”, and published them. I hope you can read the article again and give me your feedback if I am on the right track. Sincerely. Daniela. Bemdani (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @DoubleGrazing, I understand your decision. However, I believe that this incident does need an article on Wikipedia.
This shooting of the kid has significant media coverage across major channels, including BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, and Times of Israel. These are reports from reputable sources. There are also more articles in Arabic and Hebrew languages. What makes this shooting different is that it has visual evidence which is shedding light on the police brutality in this area.
I also want to point out that this catagory: "Category:Police brutality in Israel" already contains similar incidents, written in similar style and context, making it a suitable catagory for the draft. Linking this incident to this catagory makes it possible for readers to read about more cases regarding this issue.
I hope you can reconsider your decision. Maybe we can invite other users to consider it too.
I didn't reject your draft (which would mean you cannot resubmit), I only declined it (which means you can, once you've addressed the decline reasons). Therefore there is nothing to reconsider, as my decline does not prevent you developing this further; you may go on to resubmit this, and perhaps another reviewer will take a different view.
Please read the policies I've pointed to in my comment: WP:BLP1E (which applies to living people only, I know, but recently-deceased are covered by the BLP rules) clearly states that low-profile individuals known only for a single event should not have articles, while WP:NOTNEWS requires events to have enduring notability. If you believe this event has wider or more lasting impact beyond daily news, you need to make that clear (corroborated by sources) in the draft.
There may well be articles describing similar incidents in the category you mention, and some of them may well be comparable to your draft (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), but that isn't how we evaluate drafts; we instead consider them with reference to the policies and guidelines applicable today.
I'm not categorically saying you couldn't have an article on this subject, but I don't believe the draft, as it currently stands, justifies it. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
About proposed draft "ummo letters" (rejected)
Hey DoubleGrazing
You write "Is the intention to split off Planetary_objects_proposed_in_religion,_astrology,_ufology_and_pseudoscience#Ummo into a separate article?"
Yes, more or less that was my idea because I consider the corpus of "Ummo documents " (several thousand pages, during 60 years) as a work in itself. Whether of human or extra-terrestrial ptovnance, for the two hypothesis there are only one claim, without proof.
If you to try and see these pages as a corpus in itself, as tens of thousands of people on social networks do today since 40 years and now, perhaps you'll admit that it could also be an anonymous work of science fiction describing a perfectly "possible" world, little known to English-speaking readers because it was originally written in Spanish.
Yes, I admit, I'm a fan, as I am of "Dune" for example.
What do you have against this storied and legendary indie label that has been around for over 30 years!
Yes the articles are archived on the label site because these periodicals no longer exist!
So if you did your homework the primary source is the label site because there is no longer
URL for these magazines but all these articles are legitimate sources!
Please allow /approve the draft for Van Richter Records an article on Wiki as they certainly are more important than most of the stuff you allow as articles to be published here!
Thank you
vanrichter.net 2600:1700:E751:1C90:6CA6:A634:AA52:162E (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Rc ramz has just pasted Draft:Miss Planet International to main space, and resumed editing. That account was created in Feb. 2023, and we've got plenty of legit beauty pageant obsessives, so I'm not sure whether to bring this to the the SPI. Any thoughts? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Wikishovel yes, and I've just reported it. There's so much VK socking in its history that anyone editing that article/draft is a prima facie suspect in my book! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe. Fair enough that there wasn't enough evidence for a CU, but it was still worth filing: maybe that will support a future SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
