This is an archive of past discussions with User:John B123. 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.
I haven't started anything, in fact I hadn't even edited the article since 20 March 2021 until you started POV pushing again and adding unsubstantiated claims such as The number of prostitutes in Afghanistan is relatively small. --John B123 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Why do you get upset by that? When you compare Afghanistan with other countries, especially its neighboring countries, the number of prostitutes is relatively small in Afghanistan. There are many reasons for that and one of them is that it leads to death in Afghanistan, and nobody wants to die over such immaterial thing. Prostitution is not favored in Pakistan and Iran but it's openly everywhere. Nobody is denying or disputing this. In Central Asian states and in China, it's not only openly everywhere but also legal. It's always better to add accurate information in Wikipedia.--39.41.79.238 (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
About this, you actually believe that? Who is The Pakistan Frontier? If that had any truth it would've been openly talked about by all Afghans, especially the Taliban, and presented in every Afghan media outlet. This shows that you're here for other purposes than to improve the article.--39.41.79.238 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Additional details about Afghan women being sex-traffic'ed to India are at https://www.newageislam.com/islam-women-feminism/syed-nazakat/human-trafficking-cattle-kabul/d/10419; State Department TIP report for 2020 says "Afghan men, women, and children pay intermediaries to assist them in finding employment abroad, primarily in Iran, Pakistan, and Europe; some intermediaries and employers force Afghans into labor or sex trafficking. Some Afghan women and girls who are sold to husbands in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and India are exploited in sex trafficking and domestic servitude by their new husbands.." [1]; earlier TIP reports confirm such activities.
Importantly, the 2008 IOM report specifically highlights how utterly taboo the subject actually is in Afghanistan: it is a subject of shame so great that even greatly abused victims prefer to keep it quiet: "It would, however, be wrong to conclude that women are not often trafficked or there are less cases of sexual exploitation in Afghanistan, given that a considerable number of women trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation have actually been referred to IOM Afghanistan. Instead, this could be explained by the social stigma attached to sexual exploitation, particularly concerning women, and people’s unwillingness to open up and discuss the issues with the outsiders. The extreme difficulty encountered by the survey team in identifying female trafficking cases has somehow confirmed the tendency of Afghan families to keep sexual abuse incidents undisclosed and unreported. With such constraints, one can conclude that it is impossible to obtain an accurate picture, let alone exact numbers, of trafficking cases in today’s Afghanistan." [2] (page 41). Buckshot06(talk)05:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Who are you? I wrote to John B123. The above references talk about women from China, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Iran and other places. Human trafficking does not always involve prostitution, and that human trafficking information is not contested. You have to find a reliable source for the 7,000 young Afghan girls in India. The Pakistani Frontier is obviously unreliable. Since you can't find any you're not allowed to put that propaganda in Wikipedia.--39.41.92.164 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
St John's Church
Thanks for your note.
How should I request "help" = I have forgotten how - there is a way it should be done! However re St John's how should I enter a WWW site in this article please?Morton1945 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I entered "WWW St John's Malone, Connor.anglecan.org" - doubt if this is how it should be entered! See what I did: St John's Church.Malone.Morton1945 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
St John's Church Malone
Hi Morton1945, have a look at the changes I've made to the article. If you look at them individually you should be able to see how the changes work. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The article in question wasn't created for any promotional reason I joined the Wikipedia community to improve articles in area of entertainment and music. Obus Siki (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi , I need your help , you can this articles , this user Mugsalot change every thing and change location in Zembîlfiroş . I see this is vandalism work , Please help me , I wait your answer , thank you Hamaredha (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
He have problem , he change every thing , you can see talk page . He do not have answer , he change answer , please see and some time he do not answer me and change article Hamaredha (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This draft popped up on the expiring drafts list but I delayed it with the thought that I would submit it to AFC. Then, I saw that you were the page creator and realized that you know more about creating articles than I do. I thought it was an interesting list though if you wanted to submit it to AFC or move it over to main space. LizRead!Talk!01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It reminded me of my brother commenting on something similar in the 1990s when I fell foul of a dodgy double glazing company (replacement windows) - he said it didn't make sense. Plastics Windows Federation, it was. They've dropped Federation in the current version; if you scroll to the bottom you'll see it with the double 's'. The window business was advertising 'insurance-backed guarantee', but I never received any paperwork (policy documents). It turned out they had massively mis-represented their turnover to get a favourable rate, and were issuing insurance details to only a percentage of customers. rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Rocknrollmancer, hope all is well with you. There were certainly some double glazing sharks about in the 90s. Often 'insurance-backed guarantees' have so much fine print that in practice they're worth nothing. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, John B123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hosk, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
I wanted to thank you for moving three recent articles I created to the draft-space, rather than deleting them. I have been working on dozens of political pages recently, and am trying to prepare for the midterms. Let us continue to work together for a better Wikipedia! PickleG13 (talk)
Hi Mr John, I've added reception to it but at the time this album was released, there were really no articles or writers who reviews album, except on maybe TV and Radio programmes. I did the much I can but it's still good. Please check. Thanks. Idoghor Melody (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the article, Sakineh Ghasemi. It is awesome, but also very sad, to read her tragic story. I believe the others you created are also very good. Egeymi (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nasty bits, I'm not sure how he meets the notability guidelines? well known for the various jobs he has done throughout his career needs expansion, what jobs? I don't understand why you have moved it out of draftspace? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Well the article is still under construction if I would also like to hear your opinion about this other article Alberto Gualde and which was not template by the user in turn.--Nasty bits (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you moved page for Got Me Started Tour to Tini's page, but please don't do it again. That tour was spectacular, successful and highly noticed, I will add more information to prove it, but I can't do everything at once, I need time. It would be easier if you would also help in editing and posting information, instead of just moving it again in the Tini's page.Yiwistar (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Yiwistar, please read WP:NTOUR. For a tour to have its own page it needs to show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, yes I have already read the rules and this tour has shown great importance in terms of artistic approach, financial success, attitude towards the audience or other similar concepts. For example, look at the Lali's tour page A Bailar Tour. Its the same as Tini's Got me Started Tour and is not deleted, and I think that both meet the conditions. Yiwistar (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Hughesdarren. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Church of the Ascension, Timoleague, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Salvatore Novo, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I contested the Venktesh Shukla page you marked for speedy deletion. Input on how I proceed?
Hi John, I'm not sure all the steps I must go through to contest this, can you please advise? This is what I wrote on the talk page I contested it.
"This page should not be speedily deleted because: I wrote this page from the ground up, it has zero content derived from whatever prior page had existed -- I was not involved with and can't find the prior deleted page to compare it; it looks like it was written and deleted >3 years ago.
The person this page discussed (Venktesh Shukla) is noteworthy based on "receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Further, they have had a noteworthy impact on the business climate for Indian entrepreneurs through volunteer service over many years, as president of two different major non-profit organizations.
I cited every fact on the page from independent, reliable sources that met Wikipedia's source criteria, including reviewing Wikipedia deprecated sources to ensure they all qualified sources.
If you have problems with specific elements of the page, please let me know. And I will repair them." --Mukis (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mukis, an admin will look at the page and review taking into consideration your objection on the talk page. To me the article comes across as promotional, almost like a bio on a company website. It also seems to be more about the companies he is involved with than the man himself. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I see the article has been moved to draft. You can work on it there and submit it for review when you are ready. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi John, thank you for explaining why you flagged it; that helps. I just deleted all but a couple company names -- I had mistakenly thought I was *supposed* to list all the relevant companies.
It's looking a lot better now. I'd try to include more personal information, childhood, education etc if that's available. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Umu Obiligbo
Hi Mr John B123, Good morning from this part of Nigeria 😅. I moved a work from one of my sandboxes to main space after finishing the creation. This time around I decided to wait and see if it will be checked or reviewed by anyone. Hmmmmmm. It wasn't. and that's why I come to you everytime since I started moving from sandbox. When I use to create in main space directly, it won't be up to one hour before a reviewer will tag it for an error or a mistake or something else or even review it in some cases. It seems like those articles moved from sandbox does not reflect in New pages feed. Please tell me if there's a tag I'm not adding or if there's anything I'm not doing right. Because coming to meet you everytime is...
That aside, please check and help review Umu Obiligbo. Thanks in advance. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Idoghor Melody, articles moved from sandbox show in the New Pages Feed. There are currently 5,000 articles in the queue. You have been fortunate in the past that your articles have been reviewed quickly, but there is no guarantee on this. I've marked Umu Obiligbo as reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi John. I am creating an article for this company using a completely new format. Seeking your review and if its ok can you please help move it since the page, Polychain Capital is a redirect.
Thanks-Imcdc (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Imcdc, it looks ok to me so I've moved it to Polychain Capital. You don't need any special permissions to move an article to a name already occupied by a redirect providing the redirect has no history, ie it hasn't been changed since it was created. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi John B123! I noticed that you were recently involved in a small dispute at Molly-Mae Hague, which is similar to the one you and I recently had the other day at First Middle School of Changsha. The proper procedure for this area isn't as settled as I wish it was, but I just wanted to point you to this CENT-listed RfC from last year, which considered the topic and found that Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. I'd suggest following that protocol for future disputes to avoid any potential edit wars. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdkb. I don't think it's as simple as that. In the case of Molly-Mae Hague a sock was causing the problems, at least initially. These articles are not redirected for the fun of it, but are the problematic articles at the back of the NP queue. Simply restoring these problematic articles can cause problems with WP:BURDEN, such as at First Middle School of Changsha, and in the case of BLPs, WP:BLP. Sending these articles to AfD can also cause problems, look at the grief Onel5969 got for doing just that at ANI. There are some editors that will try and save everything, no matter how hopeless they are. In these cases sending to AfD just wastes people's time. I have no objections to redirects being restored to articles providing they make an attempt to resolve the problems. On a side note, I've never come across the {{Boosterism}} tag before. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that perspective. I should add that I've certainly seen how prolific you and Onel5969 are at NPP reviewing, and I know how thankless of a job it can be, so I hope I'm not coming across as badgering you for doing it. Regarding how to handle these situations, though, I do think that if there's a reasonable question as to whether or not a topic is notable, it deserves to have its day at AfD, where article rescuers will at least come across it and have the opportunity to try to save it. If it's hopeless, yeah, they'll be wasting their time, but the community never has too much trouble finding consensus to delete/redirect when it's warranted, and it's important that that decision be made by the community rather than unilaterally. For BLPs, I agree that the presumption should be to remove material not explicitly supported, but otherwise, our standard for what warrants a page is notability, not quality (see WP:Deletion is not cleanup), so the path for articles with problems is just to tag as needed and preserving the content so that it can be improved in the future. I don't have any delusion that First Middle School of Changsha will reach the level of development of its U.S. counterparts like Stuyvesant High School any time soon, but there would never be any question about notability for those pages, and it won't be able to start developing unless it's allowed to exist. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdkb. I didn't take you comments as any sort of criticism. On the subject of reverting redirection of articles, there is already an established policy on that at WP:ATD-R. Whilst not disagreeing with the RfC, the policy puts the onus on those objecting to redirection to discus (either on the talk page or at AfD) before restoring the article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that paragraph. It's very confusingly worded with the current text of A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. I read that to mean "If the change is disputed (via a revert bringing back the page), an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect (i.e. before deleting and redirecting again). It appears you're interpreting "restoring the redirect" to mean the opposite, i.e. bringing back the page. Looking at the three relevant discussions (the 2018 RfC, the 2020 wording tweak, and the 2020 RfC I linked above), I think my interpretation was the original intention. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
BTW, do I have to request that someone assess the article, or does that get done automatically? I've only created two articles so I'm not really sure how it works. Tewdar (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The software behind the feed looks for <ref> tags to determine if the article is referenced. If you use {{sfn}}, {{sfnp}} or {{harvnb}} for referencing it doesn't pick up that it has references. It's not really a problem as things like referencing are checked manually when a page is reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)--John B123 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello John, I'm working on the "one source" tag you added to this page. I found an excellent additional source from Harvard Business School but am having trouble bringing up the references list (there's only one at this point).
Shenrichs (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks John B123. It's my first time doing an edit to add a source; also it's unusual in that the existing source in the original was for free-content material. You might take a look at it and let me if any problems.
Shenrichs (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi John B123, Please can you review the Hans Airways page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Airways - which I have written. Hopefully I have created it properly straight away this time. Feel free to make any other suggestions to make this page better. Thanks and regards. MW1011 (talk)
Hi John B123, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways (which you helped me publish before), as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 (talk)
Hi RV, I've marked Cottonade as reviewed. Somebody else has already reviewed Etamine. I'm withdrawing from reviewing so this will be the last page I can review for you. All the best for the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
John, Sir, Please don't do that. Without your encouragement and guidance, I personally would not be the same. We respectfully request that you reconsider your decision. There are many who require your assistance. Your support and guidance has been invaluable throughout the process. I'll miss your reviews, which have a special place in my heart. Warm regards RV (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 185.69.144.71. This is a Vodafone mobile IP. John B123 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since this is an open proxy block I cannot soften it; it seems to be a Vodafone VPN as well. Better to refer you to WP:IPECPROXY and suggest you ask for your account to be exempt from these blocks. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi Idoghor Melody, I've marked the article as reviewed. I'm withdrawing from reviewing so this will be the last page I can review for you. All the best for the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
We haven’t interacted that much but I learned a lot from following your taggings and was always in awe of your volume and accuracy. I completely understand why you’ve had enough and I hope you find more rewarding things to do instead. All the best. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I concur and 100% agree with how you described the brutality of some wannabe dictators among the administrators. You were doing the most ungratefui job on the project and that's how you're mistreated at the end of the day LouisAlain (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunate to see you go from NPP
Hi John. I saw your comment in the NPP section.
Its really unfortunate the admins didn't give you or the others the support needed.
Its even more unfortunate that you are no longer doing reviews.
So I speak on behalf of many who would like to express our gratitude to you and your hard work in helping perform all those reviews.
Could you please advise on how to properly post the contributions I am making to the Microcredential entry ? I never started a Wikipedia entry before but I think I am posting legitimate content on the matter, being deeply involved in the topic.
You have been reverting all my updates - I can't understand why, so I am looking for your guidance.
the last update is particularly significant as the starting point toward a universal definition of microcredential by UNESCO, Here is the webinar and soon the full report will be made public.
The entry was updated with the draft definitions provided by UNESCO - the idea of the expert team was to crowdsource the fine tuning of the definition by creating an entry in Wikipedia. We are all excited about this opportunity and I was asked to handle that, but unfortunately all my edits get reverted to "microdegree".
The entry has not global visibility and we want to continue to drive revisions from the global education community to it.
What is the right way to engage ? Why are my updates reverted immediately ?
Hi Simone. There seems to be some misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary - see WP:NOTDIC. Definitions are handled by the sister project Wiktionary. Wikipedia is also not a vehicle to garner public opinion. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The definition is only one facet of the articulation of microcredentials - it is a conversation starter that we would like the education community to build on, leveraging the momentum created by the UNESCO Report mentioned above. We expect there to be more sections like: Use Cases, examples, Policies references, implementations, technical aspects, recognition guidance, platforms etc.
By many accounts, microcredentials are the currency of the future of learning.
-> For these reasons, I think a Wikipedia entry is needed for microcredentials
In some respects it is similar to the microdegree entry, only the conversation around microcredential is much wide in scope and relevance in the domain. In fact, microdegrees are a subset of microcredentials. Please refer to the recent comment made on the Talk page of microdegree by Phil Barker
On Sept. 21st at 11am UTC, we will be hosting a follow up webinar open to anyone to continue the conversation "toward a common definition of microcredentials" started by UNESCO. This work if very much in progress and requires the contribution by the open community - we thought the crowdsourcing through Wikipedia was a great way to support the work. This is why I started this entry (with no previous wikipedia experience). During this event we intended to share the wikipedia entry and encourage the participants and community to direct the discourse there.
-> I would like to ask if you could put up the starting prompt (draft definition) I had provided and refrain to revert back to microdegrees
Hi Simone. For a subject to have a page on Wikipedia it needs to meet the notability guidelines - see WP:N. These guidelines are based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I note the article was last reverted to a redirect by Scope creep, unless they have a different view then I don't see it qualifies for an article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @John B123:, @Psykoreactor:. They seem to be a new thing that has come existance during covid in the UK, but whether it is notable as a subject, i'm not sure. I reverted the present article, as it read like a whitepaper with a single social media ref, that is unacceptable. If it is recreated it needs to be academic examination of what they are, why they came into existance, what need the serve and so on. I would suggest creating a draft article so it can be reviewed. scope_creepTalk16:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi @John B123:, @Scope creep:. Thank you for the feedback on the Wikipedia contributing protocol. I will take the advise and start a draft page in my "Sandbox" where I will try to catalyze reviews (content and format) before suggesting it again as a public page. I believe there is a compelling case for having an entry for microcredentials. The term is already mentioned extensively in the microdegree page, which is a good sign of evidence. As a matter of fact, what current research and practice seem to suggest is that microcredentials might be the parent term of microdegree. Thanks also to Phil Barker for the support in making sense of wikipedia things early on and starting to substantiate the case for microcredentials in the Talk page of microdegree
First, excuse me for my late answer. The article shows that the album peaks in many european countries, im going to reverse your edit.
Realxsalo the article mentions nothing of the sort although the single reference shows that. Please read my edit summary when I redirected the artcle: Redirected - virtually unreferenced - see WP:BURDEN before restoring Please comply with WP:BURDEN and add references to verify the content. --John B123 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts?
I note you did this which in my opinion is very much apt. The tag was removed here. I moved it to Draftspace due to notability concerns and possible COI here. It seems to have made its way back to mainspace, I’m not sure what to make of this, can you take a second look at the article and check to see if the notability threshold is met? I’d appreciate your thoughts and take on this. Celestina007 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Celestina007, I don't see that it meets the notability guidelines any more than when I tagged it previously. As it has been draftified once and then moved back to mainspace you can't send it to draft again, so AfD would seem the only option. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Exactly I wasn’t planning on draftyfing, I cross checked the article & I didn’t see it to be notable enough, since the {{notability}} tag up until now, thus I decided ask for a second opinion from you, yes, AFD seems to be the only plausible course of action now. Thanks John. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m looking to adapt new formulas when reviewing articles so I’m going about asking veteran reviewers their approach. My question is, I note that when you come across non notable article on mainspace you tend to leave the “notability” tag on the article, now, when you do so, do you mark as “reviewed” or do you manually “un-review” it? Celestina007 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Celestina007. There are two different views on how reviewing should be carried out. The first is that when you look at an article, you tag it as neccasary and mark it as reviewed as you have reviewed it. The second is that you should only mark articles as reviewed if they are suitable to remain in mainspace as they are (although they may still have more minor issues). I subscribe to the latter.
When I was reviewing the first thing I looked at was notability. If it was obviously not notable, I'd nominate for speedy or AfD. If I wasn't sure I'd add a notability tag but not mark it as reviewed. 'Not sure' would also include where there is no notability shown on the page. For example for a film article, if there were no reviews on the page (to satisfy WP:NFILM) I'd tag it. There may well be reviews for the film, but I don't see that it is part of the NPP remit to search for them. (Unlike sending them to AfD where you need to do a WP:BEFORE search). Leaving it in the queue allows other reviewers to look at it, effectively getting a second opinion. If you mark it as reviewed then the chances are no other reviewers will see it.
The next thing I'd look at is references. If there were no references I'd tag it as such but not mark it as reviewed. Every couple of days I'd go through the unreferenced articles in the feed and if they had been previously tagged as such move them to draft. When there were a list of general references, I'd tag the article with {{no footnotes}} but not mark it as reviewed (WP:VERIFY requires inline citations). If there were some inline references but required more I'd tag it with {{refimprove}} or {{BLP sources}}. If a lot of the content was referenced then I'd mark it as reviewed as well as tagging, but if it was largely unreferenced then I'd leave it as unreviewed. One test you could apply here is if you removed all the unreferenced content, would the article pass the basic requirements to stay in mainspace.
Generally if I came across an article that somebody else had reviewed that I though needed tags, I add add the tags but not unreview it.
Hope this helps. Although I'm no longer actively involved in NPP, I'm happy to offer any advice I can if you need it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
ok, so, i added new content to the page, but it has lots of cite errors and possibly some grammar errors, so, can you fix them for me, as im not good with that. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
