User talk:5225C/2021/January

Archives

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2019 SailGP championship has been accepted

2019 SailGP championship, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2021–22 SailGP championship (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is a future event of a sort that does not normally have a separate article until the competition begins. Please update and resubmit after the competition starts.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2021–22 SailGP championship and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2021–22 SailGP championship, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 5225C! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: McLaren M4A (January 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Hatchens was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The entity has been redirected to McLaren. For more clarity, connect with GTHO or Robert McClenon (the ones who have redirection templates). -

Hatchens (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: Would you mind being a bit more specific here? This draft does not violate any of the five pillars.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for rejecting this draft is nonsense. The fact that the redirect exists may be a problem, but I can't imagine why this article wouldn't have been approved. User:hitroMilanese has nominated McLaren M4A for speedy deletion to allow your draft to be moved into mainspace as it looks ready. Hatchens, if you are going to review drafts, you should give more meaningful feedback, and not reject drafts solely because of the existence of a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A7V2, the draft is tagged with WP:Automobiles. Sooner or later, it will get other editors' attention. - Hatchens (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: AV72 raises a valid concern though, since the existence of a redirect is not valid grounds for rejection. Could you please explain your reasoning behind your initial rejection?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5225C, the page is rejected for two primary reasons; 1) lack of citations/references as per WP:RS 2) it also lacks WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you didn't list either of those in you rejection, and neither of those issues mean that the draft is a violation of the five pillars. To me, this does not sound like a thorough review. How did the existence of a redirect come into this? Why did you reject my submission instead of declining it? And why didn't you simply list these issues instead of rejecting because of a redirect? I'm not sure how this follows.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While rejecting a draft, it is not mandatory to comment. But, since you have insisted... I've added an advisory for the other reviewers. Kindly follow the communication thread over the draft and if you need any further assistance, please feel free to let me know. - Hatchens (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: I have noticed your comments, thank you. But you haven't answered my questions. It may not be mandatory to comment, but you did, and you gave something completely unrelated to the acceptance of the draft as your reason for rejection – not denial, rejection. The issues you are listing now are issues, yes, but they are not grounds for rejection of a draft. Why did you reject the draft when the issues did not warrant that, and why did you comment on the existence of a redirect?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5225C, yes they are the grounds for rejection of any draft which doesn't fulfill the basic requirements for an AfC approval. Now, if you have an issue (which I can assume you already have), kindly wait for the other reviewers' call on this draft (since you have resubmitted it again). Secondly, everyone has their own reasonings. Either you agree or disagree. You can't impose what you think or what you like. You had a doubt on my reviewing so you resubmitted the draft. Perfect step taken but I'm not understanding why are you getting so agitated? So, Just relax. I hope, all your questions have been answered. So, have patience and all the best. - Hatchens (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens Please take my word for it that I'm not agitated over delaying my draft. I'm concerned about your review because I do not believe it was appropriate, and I would hope that this isn't the sort of review you regularly conduct. Rejecting a draft, which is the course of action you took, means it is not worthy of inclusion. Issues with sourcing are not violations of the five pillars. Those are valid issues you have identified, I'm not denying that, but the correct response there would be to deny the draft as not ready for publication until those issues are addressed. Further, I simply do not understand why your brought the redirect into this. It has no bearing on the acceptance of a draft, but you included it in your comments. Do you see where my concerns are coming from?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: Your rationale for rejecting (that the draft is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia) is borderline disruptive, and you should probably either strike it or apologise. If you felt an expert was required (what that means I don't know. Wikipedia is written by anyone with access to reliable sources, not experts, and as participants in the Automobile, Motorsport and Formula One wikiprojects both myself and 5225C could potentially be called "experts" if all you wanted was someone from the wikiproject). If you don't feel yourself qualified or able to review a particular draft, then don't review it (and absolutely don't reject it for frivolous reasons). You are responsible for your review, and you have yet to explain how the draft violated even one of the five pillars. A7V2 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A7V2 and 5225C, - your concerns are duly noted, acknowledged, and appreciated. Will do the needful. Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:McLaren M4A has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:McLaren M4A. Thanks! Hatchens (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: McLaren M4A has been accepted

McLaren M4A, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]