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.
Hii can you help me to approve Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim article, can you told me what is my mistake can you please added everything about Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim
@Dbgbr: there is nothing to suggest this subject is notable enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia. No amount of editing is going to change that, what you need is sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
References added as per the guidelines of Wikipedia , if is there any writing mistakes kindly make it correct . Dbgbr (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
wikipedia page
Hi, i've noticed that you've declined a draft under this name "Pierre Timaitre". I understand that wikipedia must have his own way of verifying online sources, however all the informations given had been verified by the french wikipedia team.
I've given all the sources and the online links for them to be verified and knowing the fact all these informations are about me, i can guarantee you that thery're legit.
Let me know if there is something else that need to be done.
@Phantomlord66: if you've been contacted by anyone offering to get a draft accepted, it is almost certainly a scam. I would strongly advise you not to pay any money, and you may report this by e-mailing any evidence to our investigations team. See WP:SCAM for more information.
As for your draft (which I haven't looked at), if you believe that you have addressed the issues for the earlier decline, you can resubmit it for another review. Just note that whether an article on the subject exists in the French-language Wikipedia (which is what I think you're saying?) makes no difference, as each language version is a totally separate project with their own policies and requirements. To be accepted for publication here, the draft will have to meet our requirements, which are probably stricter than in any other language version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your response. I've checked the article and i've given all the links to the inline citations as they appear on the french version of the same page.
They're all available online on websites such as IMDB, Spotify, Apple Music, Allociné even google and a bunch of other mostly french websites.
Let me know if there is anything else that i should try.
Hi! I would like to ask whether presenting the concept of a marketing funnel from a digital perspective (digital marketing funnel) would be acceptable for inclusion. This confirmation is important before I proceed with further revisions and development of the content. Thanks. CatherineGason (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@S0091: what I don't get is why they keep making the same sort of edits, leave the same edit comments, etc. Do they think we can't connect the dots... or is the whole point that they want us to keep whack-a-mole'ing them ad infinitum? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't get anything they do. Why submit random drafts? Or make useless white space edits? It doesn't appear gaming EC is their goal. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, can I ask for guidance about primary source and user generated source for this particular draft which got declined because of the most of sources originated from Weibo. But the Weibo that I used as reference was from Official Weibo account from the related and involved company (especially for endorsement section). Also it was not a random Weibo account but from verified Weibo account, isn't it considered to be a primary source rather than user generated source? --—Shenaall (t♣c) 01:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Shenaall: that draft was declined because it does not show that the subject is notable, and that is the core issue that must be addressed if the draft is to be resubmitted.
An additional comment was provided saying most of the sources are user-generated. While user-generated sources can sometimes be used to support entirely non-contentious factual information, they are considered inherently unreliable because quite literally anyone can post anything they want on social media and similar platforms, even in the case of 'official' company accounts.
Primary sources, which includes many user-generated ones such as blogs, social media, etc., do not establish notability (according to the general WP:GNG guideline, or derivatives thereof), regardless of how reliable they may be.
I have my doubts that it has ever been the intention for Gladstone's draft to see the light of day. You will have seen that a massive amount was taken from the obit 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Timtrent: that would certainly seem like a plausible explanation. Or could be that, along with the conveyed materials, came the instruction to just take the bulk of the info from the obit. Who knows? (Not me, obvs and as ushe.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking I might have to stop AfC work, or at least seriously rethink how I go about it. It's making me cynical and paranoid, and I see bogeymen everywhere... and some of them aren't even real. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Polarising glasses are useful. I think this editor is a superfan, with the determination of superfans everywhere. They get blocked eventually, most of them. Keep seeing bogeymen. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I make no comment on whether you have been a pillock (I certainly have!), but this seems a wholly justified move. :) Google finds nothing even vaguely resembling GNG sources, although I admit I gave up scrolling after the first half a dozen pages. (Seems like a lot of UPE/COI editing in the history, too.) I'll go and post a !vote at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, private unis certainly are a mixed bag – Harvard is private, but so are countless diploma mills. I reckon this is towards the latter end of the spectrum. A lot of those are now picked up by AfC, but this seems to be over ten years old. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Had it been newer I would have used CSD. I have view that articles over 'a certain age' deserve discussion. NIILM School of Business is another such. Don't ask me what 'a certain age' might be. I judge on merits!
Personally, I find that "a certain age" gets higher, for some reason, the older I get. When I was 20, 30 was defo over-the-hill. Now, 55 is the new 20! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I was rather surprised they were all socks. Even dug up some more I didn't suspect. The CU data was very, very clear. :( --Yamla (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. You rejected due to lack of independent sources, I did quote quite a few. I see another PR agency has a page which I consider to be quite similar that is approved Frank PR. Your advise on what else is needed should be reduced or dumbed down would be most appreciated. Thank you. PRLaydee 86.21.73.192 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
Secondly, a technical point: I didn't reject Draft:Milk & Honey PR - B Corp Certified, I only declined it. The difference being, rejection means the end of the road; decline, on the other hand, means you need to improve the draft, after which you may resubmit it.
I declined it not because of lack of 'independent' (by which, you mean mean third-party?) sources, but because the sources do not establish notability according to the WP:NCORP guideline. For that, we need to see significant coverage (not just passing mentions, routine business reporting, company 'profiles', etc.), directly of the subject, in multiple secondary source that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. And the draft should mainly summarise what such sources have said, which is what Wikipedia essentially is all about.
The Frank PR article was created 15 years ago, when our notability requirements were more relaxed, and also before the AfC review process (which is what your draft is going through) existed, so in that sense that article was never 'approved' as such. There are undoubtedly any number of problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, which we haven't yet got around to dealing with, but that is no reason to create more such problems; all new articles must meet our currently-applicable standards and policies. That is why we don't assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles, but rather by reference to the said policies.
Finally, I posted on your talk page User talk:PRLaydee a message about conflicts of interest (COI); please read and respond to it. Thank you.
@Siez18: this is the business telling the world about itself, and without any real evidence of notability, to boot; that is pretty much the definition of advertising. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
User:DISHANT ATWAL/sandbox
I have cited the references as you can see below the whole article. What should I do to improve it. By the way I want to make a page about the culture of my area. DISHANT ATWAL (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
According to a novel I read, there was an American WWII-song that went "I'm gonna go find a fellow who's yellow, and beat him red, white and blue." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Frozen902: well, I don't go around breaking women's hearts, if that's what you thought. :) (I'm only saying, because that's kind of what it sounds to me like...)
If you click on the heart in that userbox, it takes you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. This WikiProject aims to correct the gender balance in Wikipedia's biography articles, which is currently heavily weighted in favour of men (something like four men's biographies to every one woman's). That userbox is just a way of showing support, and for tracking how many women I've created biography articles for.
PS: Should probably add that the name of the 'Women in Red' project comes from the 'red' and 'blue' wikilinks. Normally an internal link to another article is shown in blue. When a link points to an article which doesn't exist, it's shown in red. So for example, there isn't yet an article on the Italian design Nanda Vigo, hence that link is red. By creating an article on her, you can 'turn the link blue'. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Kuru: no problem at all. I put it under review with the intention of looking into the provenance, which I think involves some socking, but then had to go out for the day. I'll take another look shortly. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@IqbalHossain: no thanks, I don't do on-demand reviews, it wouldn't be fair to all the other nearly 3,000 drafts that are awaiting review. Be patient, someone will review this at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315
Hi @DoubleGrazing, I read your comment to Draft:Gauth, I need to decide whether this is about the app or the company behind it, and focus solely on that. NOW: i decide the Draft:gauth is about the APP & Website. What shall I do the next? Shall I re-submit it or let someone know the decision somewhere? If you could help to guide me, please kindly let me know. Thank you. Black Tortoise Lake (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Black Tortoise Lake: in that case, you need to rewrite the draft so that it's unequivocally about the app. You can of course mention that the app is developed by the company, but don't write about the company in any extent.
Hi @DoubleGrazing, i would like to discuss more about this, as you can see Brainly, it writes company (history) as one main part, the platform (APP, website) as another main part. I think Draft:Gauth can do the same thing, that's why I write current content those are similar to Brainly: Platform & APP info contained in "Features", Company info contained in "Story", is this wrong? please correct me. If it is wrong, what can I do to publish content similar to Brainly?
Thank you for your remind about Draft:Gauthmath, I would like to submit Draft:Gauth instead of resubmit Draft:Gauthmath since I read some news it has been rebranded, so the Gauth shall be the correct article name meets the brand/app/website now. Black Tortoise Lake (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@Black Tortoise Lake: there are all sorts of problems among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, and for every problematic draft you can find an existing article with the same problems; this doesn't mean we should create more such problems.
The basic principle is that an article should cover one subject only. I realise it's not always that clear-cut, an article about a business will inevitably at least mention their products as well, and sometimes a business is almost synonymous with its products, and vice versa. All I'm saying is that it must be clear to the reader what the article's subject is, and the article must focus on its subject, not meander into other, related subjects.
Anyway, I offer this as general advice, I didn't decline your draft for this reason. You can take onboard or ignore the advice as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @DoubleGrazing, I didn't realize it was a "problem" since Brainly did it, until see your advice, now I know it's a "problem". Your advice is surely accepted, I will revise the article, so that to make the content read like focusing on one subject. To this article, i will keep a paragraph about the "parent company" - not the Gauth company, since the reason talked: the story of the parent company of the APP makes the APP more known to the public as the news reported. Black Tortoise Lake (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Nikolaos Divinis
Hi i need help regarding the article of personal life of Nikolaos Divinis please tell what changes need to be made and how the article needs to be reformed so it would meet wikipedias' standards. Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος: articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently eg. the entire 'Education and Research' section is unreferenced, as is the DOB. Also, a couple of the sources are not considered reliable, eg. Metal Archives and Google Sites. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος: I'm not necessarily saying that. Insufficient referencing was the reason why I declined this draft. I didn't check it for other issues, eg. whether notability has been demonstrated. But if you address the referencing shortfall, you can then resubmit the draft for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, with regard to my article's appearance seeming more like an advertisement than encyclopedia content, I am doing my best to model it from existing Wikipedia pages, such as this one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearanceJobs You'll note the similar style, similar citations, etc. I am happy to work on this article of mine more and do my very best to bring better scholarship to the article. I am trying to create a page that shows in an informative way the work of this business and how it is solving for a unique Department of Defense need, much the same way ClearanceJobs Wikipedia page shows how it does the same for the broader intelligence community. Please guide me so I can improve and meet standards of Wikipedia. --Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@Scholar.me.Squad: you have also asked this question at the AfC help desk, where it has been answered. Please don't ask the same question in several places, as this just duplicates effort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
No problem at all. I was just saying for future reference, to save your own effort as much as anyone's. Sometimes we get editors asking the same question in rapid succession at the Teahouse, and the Help desk, and the AfC help desk, and a few user talk pages... it basically becomes a game of whack-a-mole. :)
Thank you very much DoubleGrazing. It helps to better understand, especially from a volunteer such as yourself how to better engage with Wikipedia in a thoughtful and careful manner. Appreciated! Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Create my Wikipedia Profile
Hi everyone and creator,
I want to create my wikipedia profile, i have 15-20 artivcle
@JETARAMCHOUDHARY: I suppose you're referring to Draft:Jeta Ram Choudhary? In addition to the advice I left in my decline notice, now that I know this is about you yourself, please note that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIO for the reasons why.
And no, I won't be "touching you on whatsapp" (sic), and I also suggest you don't post your personal or contact details anywhere on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Advice for my Draft to come on the main Article Page
Greetings Mr Double Grazing,
I created a Wikipedia page about Delhi Public School Doors which was on the article page for some time but after a few hours it was transferred to the draft page and when I requested for resubmission it was also rejected. So can you please tell me where the mistake has happened and how it was on the article page for a short period of time? And then why it was removed from the article page and transferred to the draft page? And Please give me some advice about how can i bring my draft to the main article space. Because I am still new and I don't know much about it but i am trying my best and learning. Would love to get a reply from your side. Amanatadverse17 (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Amanatadverse17, what seems to have happened is as follows:
Approx three weeks ago you created Draft:Delhi Public School, Dooars in the draft space and submitted it for review at AfC. It was declined three times for lack of notability. At that point you requested the draft to be deleted, which was done on the 23rd.
You then created a new version yesterday directly in the main article space at Delhi Public School, Dooars. After a few hours, New Page Patrol reviewed the article, determined that it still didn't demonstrate notability, and moved it into the draft space.
Without making any improvements to it, you submitted it for another review, and I inevitably declined it.
Notability is a core requirement, which every subject must demonstrate in order to be included in Wikipedia. When your draft is declined multiple times at AfC for lack of notability, that tells you that the subject is not ready for publication. If you go ahead and publish it regardless, New Page Patrol, which checks all new articles for compliance with our core policies, will either draftify or delete it anyway, as happened here. If you then submit the draft for review without developing it further, it is a foregone conclusion that it won't be accepted.
Rather than trying to fight the system, you need to read and understand the notability guideline applicable to organisations, WP:ORG, and ensure that the draft complies with that, before submitting it for another review. Otherwise it will yet again be declined, and eventually rejected outright.
(BTW, please remember to log into your account whenever editing; there are some edits from IP address/-es in this draft.)
