Jump to content

User talk:Drewmutt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was nothing but a mistake!

[edit]

I did not any changes in any article! My way in Wikipedia is 'read only', I'm just 'lurking'! 'Twas some vandal... and a shared IP address. By the way, I'm Russian, so forgive my grammar if it's poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.83.235 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of things considered foul smelling for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of things considered foul smelling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things considered foul smelling until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

[edit]
Hello Drewmutt,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UNDO IT and DO NOT GAME: Your quick revert on Birbal with no valid explanation

[edit]

I am going to restore my edits on Birbal you had reverted without proper explanation and discussion. I had written detailed explanation on Birbal's talk page on 7th April 2017. Since you been watching the Birbal page, you still have not provided response there till 24 May. I will proceed with restoration and please discuss on Birbal talk page, address SPECIFIC points raised by me. As of now there is BIASED POV JUNK communal POV content with attempt to communalise the topic in the guise of righting the wrong (convert it to Islamic centric, when bribal was disciple of Akbar's din-i-ilahi, Islamization is double wrong in addition to all my other objection), from junk references like CM NAIM that are not of encyclopedic quality, this junk needs to be removed, which i did in my edits but u reverted it, and u have not responded to my concerns on talk page so i will restore my changes. Are you same person (and using same ip address as Ugog Nizdast (talk))? no gaming the system using two accounts. I am not letting Birbal page be communalised. I wish to see a NEUTRAL HIGH QUALITY content and junk will be removed. I seke no unnecessary tussles with people. Please collaborate with me constructively to remove junk communalization with poor sources and bad POV. Thanks. Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much for your help. That would had taken me days to get done. It was very kind of you and I wanted to personally thank you! I'm just a dad who had to watch my daughter being torumented online, after countless efforts with the police. We found an amazing Organization that helped us not only get justice for daughter and also get help with the PTSD and coping as a family in general. I'm just trying to do what I can in my spare time to give some kind of thank you by making this remarkable young lady, known, so others can find help. Thanks again . Chrisnadeau1973 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of locomotive manufacturers

[edit]

Hi, I would like to change and adjust the name List of locomotive builders to List of locomotive manufacturers, because I found other lists described manufacturers,
such as List of rolling stock manufacturers, List of tram manufacturers.
Keroro123456 (talk 07:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keroro123456, that sounds like a pretty straightforward move. If there's no obvious reason to contest this move, just be BOLD and do it yourself! See WP:MOVE for how. If you think someone might oppose the move, then you should start a move request. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

00:15:53, 27 May 2017 review of submission by Frank Cianciullo

[edit]


Please reconsider your position. Your point was brought up early by another reviewer. It was already addressed and we then moved on to other improvements to the page.

Del Pinto's notability is clear. She is recognized by The National Gallery of Canada in our capital, Ottawa. They have an extensive file of her background and her work in their library.

Del Pinto is also listed on the official Government site of Canadian Artists - https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/aac-aic/artiste_detailler_bas-artist_detail_bas.app?rID=57558&fID=2&lang=en&qlang=fr&pID=267&ps=50&sort=AM_ASC

Her work is in numerous collections - example given of Mr. & Mrs. Lande.

We used Claire Desjardins' Wikipedia page as model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Desjardins. The pages are comparable.

Leading Montreal newspapers such as The Montreal Gazette, Le Devoir and others have talked about her work. Numerous Montreal bloggers have talked about her work. Del Pinto is very well known in Montreal. She was commissioned to do work by noted and prestigious organizations such as The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and by The Montreal Symphony Orchestra.

Thank You

@Frank Cianciullo: Firstly, thank you for reaching out, it a great way to get more feedback. I know article creation can be a daunting process, especially your first one, at least I know it was for me. I also see you've put a lot of work into it, and I appreciate that. My feedback was based on a few things, but the most important being in my comment. As the reviewer before me mentioned, it needs more references from reliable sources. Also, unfortunately, simply having a listing on a government database doesn't count as media coverage. I do appreciate you pointing me to that article, because I feel it suffers from similar issues, and I have nominated it for deletion. All that being said, I see your article is getting better and better the more you improve it, and I believe it's nearing inclusion, but just not quite there yet. Let me know if you have any other questions, and thanks again for your contributions! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:11:21, 28 May 2017 review of submission by Frank Cianciullo

[edit]


Hi Drewmutt, I took your advice and added more information on independent press coverage. Can you please take a look at it again. Thanks, Frank

@Frank Cianciullo: It does look like you made some improvements, but I generally don't like to review a page more than once, plus another editor may be able to give you a better assortment of feedback. Best of luck! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:58, 30 May 2017 review of submission by Patricklaredo

[edit]


I am not necessarily requesting a re-review, but I am asking for further guidance on what I can improve on the article to get it published. The reason for non publication was that the references were not verifiable, however, I provided ample and varied references that were independent from and directly addressed the organisation. What specifically about them were un-verifiable so I can go about changing them and finding new references.

@Patricklaredo: Hi there, and thanks for reaching out! To give you more insight into my comment, the issue I had was with a lack of in-depth coverage of the subject. I agree that there were references to great sources, but those sources seemed to only speak about the union in context of a litigation. Nearly all the sources are about other topics and the union is only mentioned in passing. As per Wikipedia's inclusion policy we need the references to cover the subject in a in-depth manner. I hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions and thanks for contributing! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden EHS at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - reopened discussion

[edit]

I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Reopening Sweden EHS matter --papageno (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For taking the time to make, photograph, upload, and eat, a plate of toast points. Thanks to you, the article now has a lovely image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

[edit]
Helpster
Thanks buddy Bulle Shah (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:19, 22 June 2017 review of submission by 87.151.174.175

[edit]


Dear Drewmutt, I don't see how the sources cited in this article are not independent and reliable. "Die Welt" is the most widely circulated daily newspaper in Germany. They have covered Christian von Borries' work extensively. The articles where published in print. In what way is this not a reliable or independent source? I would ask the same with regard to the official websites of the international film festivals. Do these not count as reliable sources? I appreciate your help in improving this article, thanks! Bonniedust (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonniedust: Looking back on my comments, I could of been a bit more clear, so thank you for coming by for additional feedback! I don't disagree "Die Welt" is a good source, but as per our abbreviated notability requirements: We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. So, although it is a good source, it seemed to be the only one, not satisfying the "multiple" stated before. That being said, I do think it's very close, and probably needs just a couple more reliable sources to be approved. Hope this helps, and thanks again for coming by! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:24:14, 25 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 37.221.253.62

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi, can you please finish the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Petr_Hor%C3%A1lek? From my side is done and I have no more time and experience to finish it accordint to your rules. I only translated Czech version. Thank you very much!

DTTR

[edit]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Xaosflux (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to your NOINDEXing edits for User:Kim Bruning. I'm not sure why I had that other page watch listed, but editing a primary user page and dropping a warning template on very long term (9+ years, 20000+ edits) editor that is in compliance with the user page guidelines isn't very friendly. While some of those subpages with article draft content (e.g. User talk:Kim Bruning/Abe Lincoln/Complete) are best unindexed, primary userpages are mostly left to the discretion of the editor who maintains them. I suggest undoing that edit and discussing with Kim Bruning if you feel their page needs updating. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 03:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Hehe, was unaware of that template. Thanks so much for the reminder, yes, I'll discuss it with her. Fwiw, I feel like the issue would be a self-resolving one, if the template had the original content mentioning "promotional" and I've mentioned such over at a talk about that. Evidently there was a debate over if people can use the index template on their user page, and yes you're right, it's to their discretion, but some docs contradict that. Anywho, that doesn't excuse it, and I'll undo and get a conversation going while I enjoy my trout dinner. Thanks again. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and yes that DTTR above was mean to be humorous, I complete agree with noindexing userspace content drafts. — xaosflux Talk 10:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:13, 27 June 2017 review of submission by Holoplex

[edit]


re: I see no benefit to this being split from Torus interconnect, feel free to add content to that article.

Torus interconnect is a switch-less network topology for connecting processing nodes in a parallel computer system (see the article on Torus interconnect) and often used in super-computers. Toroidal network topology is, in contrast, general use of toroidal topologies, which extends beyond the Torus interconnect and can also be used for network protocols, building on top of the internet or other package routing protocols.

Think of it as comparing a subject within medical science, to a subject within biology, the former is specifically about human biology, while the latter includes the former and is also much broader (about all life, essentially. )

Also compare it to the notion that "all humans are animals, all animals are not humans."


Draft:Blade of Honor

[edit]

You declined my work draft:Blade of Honor. First of all Wikipedia (I wanted to give Wikipedia a chance) and now you all have no clue about referencing and nobility. Now I see why my professor doesn't allow us to cite Wikipedia Wikileaks etc because lack of credibility. I did all this hard work and you declined me. Screw you. Please delete my account and this article. Asialuang71 Asialuang71 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asialuang71: The article has been deleted because of your request. Unfortunately, accounts can not be deleted for technical and legal reasons. Instead, you can request a WP:Courtesy vanishing, or simply abandon the account. Regards, --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 02:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Adams

[edit]

Hello, Drewmutt! You declined the submission of Draft:Jerome Adams on 28 June 2017 for WP:NN. I would recommend that Draft:Jerome Adams be re-evaluated and fast-tracked to become an article because Mr. Adams was just nominated to become the next Surgeon General of the United States. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 20:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Classicwiki: Heh, I was just about to approve it, and someone beat me to it, congrats! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:49, 30 June 2017 review of submission by Bexing

[edit]


17:49:54, 1 July 2017 review of submission by 155.186.124.98

[edit]


-The draft/article was titled wrong. Updated name to Chelsea Korka from google search for public figure credibility, she also is found on imdb.com and gettyimage.com which is not mentioned on this draft, I am unable to update the draft/article title to read Chelsea Korka for google/credibility search.

-When did being on a major network TV show and notable MTV/Other Sites article's, not be enough credibility?

-I suggest this article be created by a verified article creator, some social media notes are creditable as some are not and need to be taken down

-Article should be linked to wikipedia pages Paradiso Girls, Pussycat Dolls Presents: Search For The Next Doll, The Hills-mtv show, suggestively Pussycat Dolls

09:58:48, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Jakub Urbański

[edit]


Dear Dathus,

I was writing an article about Brian Michaels, British director. You ware the one who was chceking if it is suiteable for Wikipedia - thank you for your job. Sadly the article wasn't good at that time. As you mentioned there was not enough good references. I've found more than 20 better sources about Brian Michaels's works. Is it enough? Please let me know if it is ok now, or what can I do more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brian_Michaels). Most of Mr. Brian Michaels's works are from the pre-internet era, so finding something is not an easy task.

Thank you for advance for your answer and thanks for the great job you all do on Wikipedia!

Best regards, Jakub Urbański

Nomination of Prime Campus for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prime Campus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Campus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Drewmutt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD1

[edit]

HI Andrew. Thanks for removing the copyvio on Prime Campus. Just as an FYI, you should request revision deletion of copyrighted material that you remove from an article. You can do it with Template:Copyvio-revdel or request it directly from an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great point, I'll do that. Thanks for the reminder! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! Thanks for spotting it before it was sent to AfD. My pet peeve is articles that have significant copyvio in them that are under discussion in highly visible places, which is the only reason I noticed the revision was still live. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:34:32, 15 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Stevenshae

[edit]


Just wondering if the baseball guidelines recently changed. Not looking to outright challenge your decision on review, but better understand the difference in my submission v other minor league players who are no more notable by the guidelines you shared.

Dallas is notable throughout NCAA D1 baseball, Pac 12 conference, the state of Utah, and even turned down an opportunity with team USA to play in the Cape Cod League, which is widely considered the best amateur league in the world (where he won a championship with YD). There are a number of other wiki pages detailing less notable/ accomplished individuals. His Mr Baseball is the highest statewide award you can receive for baseball. All American honors a few months back one of the highest possible out of D1. I recognize that minor league baseball is probably a nightmare to moderate, given the sheer number of individuals, but I think the guidelines are a bit odd and loosely followed. Hence the reason I ask if they were recently changed. I read them and if the only way to be notable is through MLB and/or national team representation, we lose visibility on a number of notable players throughout the country. Baseball is different in that many guys who play for the national teams aren't even stars amongst their peers because often international play conflicts with US league schedules. Just some food for thought.

Again, truly not looking to argue (apologies if it read that way) and any insight helps; I'd love to surprise Dallas with this wiki page.

Stevenshae (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevenshae: Hi there, and thanks so much for reaching out with such a pleasant inquiry. Truthfully this one was a bit tricky, but hopefully I can help fill in the gaps. So, in regards to baseball, we have specific notability guidelines, which he doesn't qualify under. Consequently we fall back to our general notability guidelines. As he does have some media coverage, all seemed a bit too local to qualify, hence I my decision. I hope this helps give you some insight into my thought process, feel free to ask away if you have any other questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drewmutt: I appreciate the response - and it makes sense. From the first set of guidelines, specific to baseball, I agree he doesn't qualify which leads into the general notability and that is probably why there is a bit of variability when it comes to notability with minor league guys. Looking at it from your lens, I don't necessarily disagree with you. My only rebuttal, and it comes from being close to Dallas, is that I know his coverage isn't contained to just local media. I didn't want to go overkill on the article and only briefly mentioned some of the areas where he excelled outside of our region - all of it can be backed through media coverage/ releases of statistics in various leagues. To be honest, I would love to see this approved, but I would hope it could be done without adding fluff to the content. I would rather it serve as an informational article with some key points and not one that reads like a list of accomplishments, if that makes any sense. With that being said, would it help my case if I were to include sources/ media coverage from the elsewhere in the nation (PNW/ Washington, West Coast/ Cali, and Eastern US/ Cape Cod)? As you've mentioned, the issue here isn't the actual content or how it is written so much as notability. I can't influence his notability within MLB, that is a time/ skill (and a lot of luck) piece. However, under general notability he is widely recognized among baseball programs in 6 states, recognized in a handful more to a lesser extent, and is absolutely a local legend in SLC (which is no small feat). Appreciate your time on this one - it's been cool for me to go through the Wiki experience and get a small glimspe into the many people who help build it.

Request on 21:13:27, 19 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Musicwest

[edit]


Hello Drewmutt,

Thank you for reviewing my page. Would you mind taking another look when you are able? I added 3 new references for the Juno nomination. The album that was nominated for the 2008 Juno award was '“Metaphora” by Altered Laws featuring the Babayaga String Quartet and Melody Diachun' in the category "Contemporary Jazz Album of the Year".

Thank you! Musicwest (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Musicwest (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Musicwest: Thanks for reaching out. I took a look, and it still seems problematic. I saw the references you added since the decline, and they seem to point to either the subject's iTunes page or mere listings in non-notable outlets. Both of which don't really help us confirm that the subject did win the award. Although, to be clear, even if we could confirm it, it's not a guarantee of notability, as notability cannot be inferred by only winning an award. Hopefully this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:03:49, 20 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Musicwest

[edit]


Hello again Drewmutt,

I think I see where the confusion lies. The accolade listed in the bio a Juno nomination, not a Juno award.

• Reference 1 points to the Juno website and list of nominees in each category. Way down the page (in fact the 3rd category from the bottom of the page) is the list of nominees for "Contemporary Jazz Album of the Year". Under this category, you will see "Metaphora" by Altered Laws. • Reference 2: I have added a new reference that points to AllMusic.com. This shows credits for the Juno nominated album "Metaphora" with Melody Diachun listed as primary artist. The album is '"Metaphora" by Altered Laws featuring the Babayaga String Quartet and Melody Diachun', hence the Juno nomination.

You mention, "…to be clear, even if we could confirm it, it's not a guarantee of notability…"

Wiki editor Joe Decker said "With a Juno and CNJA nomination, it's very likely that Diachun does meet our notability criteria." Wouldn't a nomination for "Female Vocalist of the Year" at Canada's National Jazz Awards as well as the Juno nomination be sufficient to establish notability within the Canadian jazz scene?

Thank you again for your time!

Musicwest (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musicwest (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portigliano

[edit]

There's something fishy going on here, and I am not only referring to vertebrates in the Mediterranean. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a young adult novel named Paper Towns, and then a movie. A paper town is a town that does not exist, and was sometimes added to a map as a copyright trap. However, it seems that Portigliano is a phantom settlement that was being created as some sort of hoax in the Italian Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Heh, I just got done reading "Paper Towns" by John Green after hearing about it from this podcast, what a small Wikiworld. If nothing else, this whole thing has greatly increased my geography knowledge of Italy. Oh, and loved your fish pun, btw, always a fan of those. Thanks again for reaching out! And keep in touch, us AfCers seem to be dwindling :( Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portigliano

[edit]

No, it was considered vandalism despite the evidence I brought. The user Vituzzu often blocks people without any reason. In a nutshell a troubled administrator. I tried to report it to users who abused in Italian, but did not even read what I wrote. As far as Portigliano is concerned,there are a few tests in Italian as well, because even if it is a common one, it is a small city, thank you began the good morning.--Ciociaro '98 (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
For your work on AfC and helping new users: the draft space is a place that I don't often go for various reasons, and your positive work there with new users is something that is often missing from conversations surrounding it on en.Wiki. Thank you for your valuable service to the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

koseret

[edit]

Thanks for the quick review/approval. Nessie (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks again for helping with Lippia abyssinica and on IRC Nessie (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:35:01, 11 August 2017 review of submission by AmbokieOkey

[edit]


I created this article in the mainspace before writing it to the draft space that is why it appears as it exists, I ask for help on this matter.

AmbokieOkey, the article (for the moment) still exists, so there is zero point in submitting a draft for review. However, the article is currently up for deletion, so if/when the article is deleted then you can resubmit your draft for review. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Request on 17:36:04, 12 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Budfawcett

[edit]


Thanks Drewmutt for notifying me that my article Datis Kharrazian, DHSc, DC, MS had been deleted. I have added a wikimedia commons license to the web pages on which the biography is located. Is that enough to allow it to be published on Wikimedia. The text is my text which is located on the doctors three websites. Do I need to add additional info to the bottom of the Wikipedia bio (reference) and what is the problem form.

      • Would it be better if I remove my articles from the website, and republish on Wikipedia, and redirect the website bio to the wikipedia version. Seems like that would future proof his bio. Since he is an active doctor, it will always be a work in progress.

Can I republish the draft after I remove from website?

thanks Bud Budfawcett (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budfawcett (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:43:06, 14 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by KehrerK

[edit]


Dear Drewmutt 12 August 2017 by

I respectfully don't agree with the rejection and/or adding this long article to an other one. What these pages are all about is to show a real experience of proving the theory by building and testing it, a short summation of 9 years and 12 dedicated workers achievement.


As you see below an other reviewer agreed that it substantially different from other articles in the Wikipedia.

I don't think the 12 references came from Wiki, only two. One refers of a half page about Indutrack well before the full size suspension system was built [5], the second refers to the LIMINO for compare it to an other existing system only [8].

Yours truly KehrerK

@DrStrauss: please clearly explain how the subject of your article differs from what has already been written in the Maglev article? 1/Permanent magnets levitation does not need electrical energy, all the other maglev system does. 2/ able to operate without the closed loop feedback control that burdens ALL the electromagnetic suspension (EMS or EDS levitation) technologies. 3/ the search could not find any system that would match the search criteria except my references number (four and five) in the article. 4/ one article has one sentence about permanent magnet (indutrack)levitation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#San_Diego.2C_California_USA 5/ the other has about half a page written well before the real system was built therefore telling nothing of the system built how it designed and what are the real measured and proven characteristics of the full size system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductrack and http://electromagnetictravel.wikispaces.com/Indutrack saying the full scale version have never been tested. This article tells the test results. 6/ the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Electrodynamic_suspension_.28EDS.29 contents does not list the US full scale indutrack system except under test track tells 1 or sentences. Regards KehrerK kehrer 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 

   Hi Kehrer, thanks for your response, I accept that they are different. What you need to do now is to cleanup the article you have written, properly formatting references and removing the 'example images', and add the corresponding images to the placeholder text e.g. 'Limino line in Nagoya Japan with EMS suspension'. You might find it useful to try our new editor, Visual Editor, accessible via this link. This will make formatting references very easy. I've tried to help by formatting the headings, but if you need any help, let me know. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


kehrer 15:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:57:35, 15 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by JennGlass

[edit]


Hello, Thank you for reviewing the article I submitted. I have done the reading and research on "notability", and I do have a few specific questions that i think you could answer. As the company continues to grow and gain more press, can we edit and update the existing article and resubmit it for review at a later date? I understand that in order to be gain notability we need more news coverage through independent resources. Is there a threshold we need to meet in regards to the number of news articles and coverage about Deck Commerce, or is the substance of our press coverage that's more important? Thanks again for your help! JennGlass (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennGlass (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JennGlass, the answer to most of your questions is "yes". You are welcome to continue editing and adding to the draft, and resubmitting when you feel it has met the requirements for inclusion. If that takes a while, don't fret; as long as the page doesn't go 6+ months without an edit it can (theoretically) stay as a draft forever. There is no "minimum" number of reviews, but rather the substance/depth/etc of coverage that is more important. For a draft as short as yours, I would say 2-3 good sources would be sufficient. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Hiking in Nordegg article

[edit]

Hi Drewmutt,

You have allowed two of my articles to be published, and so I submitted a third. However, it has been denied by a user named Meter. I actually understand why it was not accepted; there were not many references, and one of the sources was unverifiable (it was a blog). However, I can think of no other way to verify hiking trails, as the best sources are those who have actually done the hikes (including myself and the blogger). My goal was also to correct inaccurate information found in the David Thompson Highway Hiking Guide. Here is the link to my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiking_trails_by_Nordegg,_Alberta

You seem to be quite helpful, so I wanted to get a second opinion before Meter deletes the page. (He has not been very helpful, as you will be able to see on my talk page)

Do you think directions for hikes have a place on Wikipedia? If not, what about Wikitravel?

Thanks!Martin Nordegg (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Drewmutt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

New NPP - thanks for advice

[edit]

Thanks for advising me on NPP.

Before signing off for the night, I went and looked at the very oldest pages in the NPP feed. (Yes, I know that's not what I said I was going to do.)

With your advice, I was able to see that these were just pages (and exactly how these old, old pages ended up on the NPP feed is still a mystery to me) that needed a normal sort of fixing and that I can view the feed as yet another way to locate pages in need of work.

So I did: Ginger Snaps, TWSI, and Sal E. Graziano (which, in turn, required a fix at The Full Blooded Italians) off the oldest end of the queue. I'm not entirely happy with the Ginger Snaps animated tv series being the "primary", but I hope the hatnote I added is sufficient until someone wants to demote it. For TWSI, it was a partially-made dab page and I took it the rest of the way (but I suspect that there may be some subtleties of dab pages that I didn't get right). The wrestling stuff I'm pretty sure I put back to right, since I mostly just undid recent changes that could not have been correct. But these were all recent changes, just to rather old pages.

Thanks again. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment since I field these questions pretty frequently and I don't think Andrew would mind: jmcgnh: these ended up back in the feed because redirects that are converted to articles count as new pages per consensus on this topic about 18 months ago (?). Basically, it would be very easy to get through NPP if you created a redirect, let it sit for 90 days, and then created a brand new article. As an interesting aside, this edit is something I'd never seen triggering a redirect to appear on the feed. Learn something new every day. Thanks for helping out with new pages, if you look at the newsletter above it contains some helpful hints (the browser option is awesome! The best thing since Twinkle!). Also, you can add WT:NPR to your watchlist and also ask questions there: its a good place to get feedback from other reviewers. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni: Thanks. It began to dawn on me that what these had in common was a transition from REDIRECT to non-REDIRECT. And it's just some quirk of the system that the date of the transition is not used when enqueuing them in the NPP feed (which would seem more natural to me, if the goal was to have an orderly work queue based on time).
The Sal E. Graziano case was removing a REDIRECT and replacing it with *nothing*. So I think it fits the pattern, even though the more usual case is replacing a REDIRECT with a full-blown article.
I already have WP:NPR on my watchlist, but I'm so new at this I was taking advantage of Drewmutt's willingness to do some real-time coaching in the IRC channel. The in-the-moment feedback works better when most obvious NPP actions are acted on in a short amount of time, in general shorter than most talk page interactions. And it's only those obvious NPP actions that I feel qualified to do at this point. I'll get better as I watch what others do and get corrected when I do something not quite right. But what I've learned today is that going to the end of the feed is not exactly a way to find cases that others have looked at and not acted on - instead, they are more likely to be pages that very recently were changed away from being redirects. The ones I worked on had been modified less than an hour before. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query on deletion of a page (Ayesha Raza Mishra)

[edit]

I would like to know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayesha_Raza_Mishra was marked for deletion. She's an actress and the page is being actively populated, she's acted in few movies + TV shows (I am to add that as well).

Is there anything I have missed that I should do to make sure the article doesn't get deleted? Nirajmb (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC) |}[reply]

Nirajmb, I would keep working on the page and join in the deletion discussion to make your case as to why the page should be kept. Nothing says that a page must be deleted if it's nominated (that is, after all, why it's a discussion), so if you can improve it sufficiently the page may be kept. No guarantees of course, but it's better than doing nothing and seeing the page definitely deleted. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Primefac Sure, I will provide justification in the article talk page. Obviously the page was created yesterday so didn't have all her acting credentials, I have added quite other movies she's played a role in. Will also keep updating with more info as in when received. Nirajmb (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRC status

[edit]

Both Freenode and KiwiIRC are broken for me. Is it just me or is it some large group of people affected by this problem? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: I dunno.. seems to be working fine for me? (shrugs) Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an hours-long temporary outage on some part of the path between me and it? It's now working again for me, too. Thanks. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACC needs help!

[edit]

Hello! I'm Dane, an account creation interface administrator. Our project is experiencing a need for trusted users to help create accounts regularly and I think you would do great in this capacity. Most of these requests come from users who are unable to do the creations themselves. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply!

Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. -- Dane talk 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:25:55, 2 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tiensuuj

[edit]


Concerning the article about Dreamstime, thank you for the review. I would like to ask for some assistance on the creation of the article. I feel like the company deserves an article as it is one of the oldest and biggest stock photography providers. Latest draft was based on American City Business Journals articles, more specifically of those from Nashville Business Journal. I consider it to be a reliable source concerning the subject matter and the articles are not promotional although I agree that they could be covering the company better. But I would be grateful for any assistance you might be able to provide in making the article better. Tiensuuj (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiensuuj (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA event this Thursday

[edit]
LA Meetup: September 7 edit-a-thon near DTLA

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the LA84 Foundation in Jefferson Park (near DTLA) on Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 5:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.! This event aims to improve coverage of female Olympians and Paralympians (some of whom will be attending!). There will be a deejay and food/drinks, and kids are welcome.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Join our Facebook group, follow our Twitter account, and like our Facebook page!! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marion Patterson (September 5)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Arthistorian1977 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
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.
Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Drewmutt, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:18:12, 5 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Zinkrg

[edit]


Used this page as reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hawkins <<Tim and John are very similar comics who tour together often, and have similar levels of success. We have been trying desperately to fix the error of googling John's name and the Wikipedia page for John Crist the Olympian being the result. I have never written a Wiki article, and probably never will again, all I'm trying to do is fix this issue.

Zinkrg (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zinkrg, unfortunately the existence of one article (even on a similar subject) does not automatically mean that a second one should be written (there's an essay called WP:OTHERSTUFF that covers this more in detail). If you look at the references for Tim Hawkins, though, you'll see that all of them talk specifically about him. On the Crist draft, however, most of the references are just brief mentions (or, as Drewmutt stated, are discussing his video). None of your references are necessarily bad sources, but they don't really show that Crist is notable according to The Golden Rule.
As a minor note, we have absolutely no control over what Google does, so even when you get the draft to an acceptable point it might not change what shows up on the search engines. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
[edit]
Here in São Paulo city, we usually call a cookie "bolacha". So here, a "bolacha" for the great translation of File:Austria Hungary ethnic.svg. I should hang around IRC more! I never had this collaborative experience before in wiki-pt, I hope I can reproduce the same thing we had going on IRC with my fellow brazilians and portuguese there.

Again, thank you! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind

[edit]

Could you pop over to Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial#Landing_page_mock-up_design and answer some questions about minor UI tweaks? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For helping to get WP:LANDING up and running. It might have been a sad day for Puzzly, but it will really help new users. Thanks for your work. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TWA

[edit]

TWA for RfA. Do it. TJWtalk 03:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

[edit]

Hi

Further to what you were saying on IRC about improvements to the user landing page, I am writing this to remind you about the COI flow. If you are rejigging the article wizard, you should create a flow towards either COI drafts or article requests, which would reduce user friction at entry and save time at NPP. Basically the wizard should be slightly politer and avoid any dead ends, because people will work around dead ends, rather than doing as asked, like submitting a article creation request. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  20:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also all pages created where a editor has declared COI should have a hidden category added to them. And all editors who answer yes to paid editing are also hidden categorised. the article wizard needs to be clear to avoid confusion, but not too clear that people will answer wrongly to avoid it. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have borrowed some of your work in making Wikipedia:Article wizard 2, which is an unfinished project that slightly extends the idea of revamping the article wizard. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  11:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Drewmutt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A pie for you!

[edit]
:) BigSugarDaddy 07:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]
Hello, Drewmutt. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Skinduptruk (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACC tool access request approved

[edit]

Drewmutt, thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have verified that you are identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and approved your request.

You may now access the interface here pending a tool root marking your account as identified in the tool database. Before you begin handling requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy to familiarise yourself with the process.

Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list following the instructions on that page. I also advise that you also join us on IRC #wikipedia-en-accounts connect where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and you can get real time advice on how to handle requests.

Please note failure to correctly assess requests will result in suspension of tool access. Account creation is not a race, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Releasing personally identifying information (such as IP and email addresses), whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated very seriously and will generally result in immediate suspension.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, and you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked as "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC.

Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! -- Dane talk 21:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Ever...

[edit]
File:ACE with Minuteman Small.jpg Operator873's Out-frikin-standing Award
For conspicuous and meritorious service under unusual and/or exceptional circumstances, I am proud to give this award to Drewmutt in honor of their accomplishments which reflect great credit upon themselves and their fellow Wikipedians. Operator873CONNECT 05:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to have page vandalism

[edit]

Trying to respond to your request for more sources, which are available, but SwisterTwister appears to have vandalized the page by removing content that I cannot now recover. Djgilbert (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I believe this is about Draft:Rocky Mountain Performance Excellence which was G11'd in August. Primefac (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

why do you create Wikipedia: New user landing page

[edit]

why did you create that page.User:CLGJam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Drewmutt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

[edit]

I don't think User:Username made an Articles for Creation submission...[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Hey there (since I don't think I've had the pleasure to introduce myself) ^_^ On the face of it, I have no idea how this happened. Any suggestions? Otherwise, I guess I should drag it over to AFCH talk or sumthin'. Either way, thanks for letting me know! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, if you look at the diff itself, you'll see the |u=username parameter in the AFC template, which tells AFCH where to leave the message. It's not Drewmutt's fault that someone put an odd name in there (hell, I've declined drafts only to have the message show up on my talk page!). Primefac (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
If an editor's methods of working on the encyclopedia give obviously wrong results, such as posting a "Notification: Your Articles for Creation submission has been declined" notice to the talk page of a user who does not exist, then something is wrong with that method. It isn't Drewmutt's fault that Wikipedia uses a template that gives wrong results, but it is someoene's fault. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template talk:AFC submission#This template occasionally send the notice to the wrong user --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with either the script or the template, nor is there any documentation I can find which could be copied to get this result. This is down to whoever submitted the draft manually changing the parameters, I even went through the new article wizard in case there was a problem there, but there was nothing. It occurred me that if an submission template is added by an IP editor it may result in this happening but I can't be sure on this.
On a unrelated note, I noticed several relevant subpages of Template:AFC submission are unprotected. Dysklyver 14:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the template talk page, it's a case of garbage in, garbage out. As for the templates, I've got my eye on them. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...said everyone who was willing to put up with shitty software, ever... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the devs who could quite easily add an error checking parser function to the script to deal with this, have much better things to do for the next 4 decades, but it could be added to the list... Dysklyver 17:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:04:59, 26 October 2017 review of submission by Brandsant22

[edit]


Hello. I am not sure what happened. I submitted a full article and now I can't seem to find it? Please help. We want to do an edit-a-thon next week and really need this page to be live. Thank you for all of your help. Brandon

@Brandsant22: From what I see, here's what happened. You created a blank draft which you submitted for review. Then, while the review was pending, you added a bunch of content in your sandbox, then submitted that for review. When a reviewer came across your sandbox submission, they converted it to a redirect pointing to your draft (which was still blank). I came across your blank draft submission and declined it for being blank.
Anywho, this has been resolved, and your populated draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace page deleted

[edit]

I've deleted the page User:Drewmutt/Tips Oshwah Doesn't Want You to Know, which seems to me to be something that is both an attack on another editor, and does not help build the encyclopedia. Please do not recreate it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peat reference

[edit]

Thanks, Drewmutt! It's o.k. now. The different content was the very problem before I tried to fix it. Actually I would prefer "Cambridge, UK." over "UK. Cambridge" but that is really very unimportant. I'm glad you helped to remove the ugly red ERROR! Thanks again! AJS [[UsStirclash (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)er:Stirclash|Stirclash]] (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bat cookie!

[edit]
A cookie as requested
Trick and treat! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

amanda yates garcia

[edit]

what about an article about the binding spells and witches v trump?Trojanwicca (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Trojanwicca This is an encyclopedia, not a fanforum. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so?Trojanwicca (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trojanwicca Please see Encyclopedia, WP:NOT.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notable topic though!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojanwicca (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trojanwicca Not unless you can establish it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding S&M Sally

[edit]

Hi there! I just added a bunch of cites and reference links I had used to write my article. Hope u can give it a look anytime u can. I appreciate so much ur help. Cheers! :D Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26M_Sally –Giuliano Verducci (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)–[reply]

Thanks for the tip Drewmutt. Just curious why you are so interested in removing only what we do from that WTC page and continue to add an incorrect reference on the small part you do leave linking to Alexanderia. Also, why are you changing the description of our 21st century WTC so that this information is also incorrect? I thought the point of Wikipedia is to have accurate information and you are removing that and adding in incorrect data. Richard Sherry (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Richard Sherry[reply]

Request on 17:08:42, 18 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Twg27

[edit]


Hi Drewmutt, thanks for your comments on The Brass Funkeys wikipedia page - we were wondering what would be realistic dependable media sources in order to get our submission passed - could you give us some examples? We have been reviewed in All About Jazz which is a renowned source in this area (and has a dedicated Wikipedia page itself), as well as dedicated reviews on other blog sites. We have also appeared on many local BBC radio shows, is it possible to reference these and would this help? We have headlined main stages at Glastonbury, North Sea Jazz and many other festivals but the record of this is only on the festival websites. The only thing we are lacking is mainstream print media reviews, which for our type of music is difficult to achieve as very few critics review in this genre. If you could let us know what realistically we need to achieve in order to get our page passed that would be great.

Twg27 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twg27, I would agree, the All About Jazz piece is a good one for demonstrating notability. However, it's the only reference that does so. Everything else is either the standard "bio" that bands put out when they attend an event (things like this), brief "here's a paragraph about every band that performed" coverage, or one-line mentions. You've got a few other reviews of their album, but it's from blogs (which generally don't lend anything towards notability unless they're well-known pundits like Christian McBride). As mentioned in the decline, you'll need to add more independent reliable sources that discuss the band. This will also let you flesh out the draft a bit more, which currently only contains a list of their concerts and CDs (which isn't much). Primefac (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Request on 22 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by L293D

[edit]

Sorry there are not many references in my article but the reference #4 is where I got all the information from. Have you clicked it? L293D (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)L293D (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: Hi there, and thanks for reaching out! Yep, and it brings up an interesting subject. So, I see it was copy and pasted from the Arduino site, this would normally constitute a copyright violation, but since Arduino (and it's content) are licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0", you can use it, but you need to attribute the source. More info on how to do that can be found here. That aside, I still feel that the content isn't enough to substantiate it's own article, and is probably best to merge with the existing one. Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any further questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With which article would you merge it? L293D (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L293D (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: Like I said in my review, Arduino seems like an appropriate home, although to be honest, simply having a pin out guide doesn't really help the user understand the subject any better, and might get reverted. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that though I would have liked that page to exist when I got started in that hobby. I should maybe expand my article. L293D (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L293D (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I can sympathize, I use Arduinos daily. But having a list like that falls a bit into what Wikipedia is not, that is it's not an indiscriminate repository of information. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? L293D (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electrochemiluminescence

[edit]

Hi Add Allen J. Bard was added. Note: Bard is one of the pioneers in the field. See http://bard.cm.utexas.edu/styled-2/ He published more than 150 papers on ECL. http://bard.cm.utexas.edu/styled-5/ Thanks.

@42.224.225.21: You're absolutely right, thanks for reaching out to me about it. I removed the warn I placed on your talk, my apologies. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last meesage to me

[edit]

I noticed you commented on my decision to added Somali victory to Operation Indian Ocean. What was wrong with that? The territorial changes says that joint forces (which given the belligerents implies Somalia) captured a great deal of territory. Doesn't that mean it ended in a Somali victory? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

23:57:42, 2 December 2017 review of submission by Sociology3000

[edit]



What exactly is wrong with the references, they are all legitimate and the information we put in the article was either from the sources we cited or from the film itself. This Wiki page is a school project that needs to be finished as soon as possible, so a quick answer back would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociology3000 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology3000, for what it's worth, the amount of copyright violations I removed from the draft certainly didn't help. If this is a class project, I really hope that you know that plagiarism is just as prohibited on Wikipedia as I assume it would be on a course assignment. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Primefac, How exactly was the production/development section copyright? I cited where i got the information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociology3000 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sociology3000, you might have given the source, but you also copied the content directly from those sources. That is not allowed. Primefac (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Okay thanks I understand now, do you believe the article is good enough to be accepted and if not any recommendations would mean a lot, thank you. Also is there anyway I can edit that specific section again but put it more into my own words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociology3000 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't actually looked at the page other than finding the copyright violations (and I'm still not overly convinced the "Folk" section hasn't been copied verbatim from somewhere). I do notice that none of the awards are referenced, which would help the notability out somewhat.
As a minor note, when leaving a talk page message, you should "sign" your posts with ~~~~, which will be automatically converted into your username so that other people know who is commenting. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac I just got them from IMDb, is that site able to be used for a reference? and thanks for letting me know Sociology3000 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC),[reply]
IMDb is not considered a reliable source because it is user-generated (much like how Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference). You're welcome to re-add a Production section, provided you write it in your own words. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac Sorry to bug you again, but I was just wondering does the page look better, and possibly good enough to be accepted as an article? Sociology3000 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drewmutt/sandbox

[edit]

User:Drewmutt/sandbox is generating 2 lint errors of type Self-closed tags. I don't understand {{invoke}} so I can't begin to try to fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Thanks so much for letting me know! I was messing around with a custom Lua module, I made some tweaks that should resolve the errors. How's it looking now? Heh, I have no idea about finding lint errors on WP, so thanks again! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The self-closed tags lint errors went away, but they are back again.
  • You can find out if a page has lint errors by clicking on "Page information" (I usually right-click and open in a new tab).
  • If there are lint errors, they appear in a box below Page properties and above External tools, which is usually or always the final section on the page.
  • The "lint errors" section tells you only how many lint errors there are of each type, not anything about the cause or where to find them.
  • To find the cause and location of lint errors: on lint errors, click on the type of lint error reported on the Page information page, and then your errors will be listed amid all others of that type.
  • Right now, there are no other errors of type "Self-closed tags", so yours are easy to find.
  • (If you were looking for errors of type "Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links", it would be much harder to find yours, as there are now 664,936 errors of that type. The lint error pages are supposed to be sorted in order of most recently edited pages last, but not all lint errors are sorted properly.)
  • For more on why this matters at all, see WP:Linter.
—Anomalocaris (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Drewmutt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:55:19, 7 December 2017 review of submission by Sociology3000

[edit]


Hey I was just wondering how long a re-review would take, I believe I made the necessary changes to the references. This is a project for my university class.Sociology3000 (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology3000, the draft process is rather backlogged right now, and reviews can take up to two months. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Primefac Okay, no problem, thanks for the reply! Sociology3000 (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Eyre Page for School Project

[edit]

The page on Eric Eyre is for a school project. We are required to have an external links section. You said they were removed per policy, but you didn't say which part of the policy they violate, so I have no way of fixing this as I don't know what's wrong. Which part of the policy does it violate? You also said you don't see how they're relevant. The external link section are all organizations Eyre is tied to. What sorts of things would be more relevant to link to?

You also removed the clarification that the Charleston Gazette is now the Charleston Gazette-Mail after a merger. Why is this being removed? We feel it's important to note.

You also continue to rearrange our sources. The way you are editing them makes our information attributed incorrectly. Proper attribution is a major part of our grade, and the changes you're making alter the accuracy of our attributions. Why are they being altered?

You also continue to remove the external links from our "Published Works" section. External links are a stipulation of the assignment, and we feel it is helpful to have links to the articles we're mentioning, in case a viewer wants to read them. Why are they being removed?

Erin.evans2mavs (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Erin.evans2mavs[reply]

Request on 22:53:58, 9 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nuclear666tour

[edit]


Hello Drewmutt, I am new on Wikipedia, and my submission for an article was declined "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". Could you help me to modify the article so it can get published ?

I found these additional sources, I hope it can help :

Thank you so much for your help


Nuclear666tour (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:01:40, 10 December 2017 review of submission by Nuclear666tour

[edit]


Hello, I previously asked for clarifications on why the article was rejected, but while looking into ways to improve the article, I wanted to add the additional sources: https://www.discogs.com/fr/artist/4085789-Can-Of-Worms-2

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/can-of-worms-mn0003443144/discography

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclear666tour (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear666tour, discogs is not a great source because it is user-generated, and allmusic is fine for verification but not so great for notability (since, as the name implies, is "all music", so there is no inherent notability in being listed there). Primefac (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

[edit]
Hello Drewmutt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Declined G5

[edit]

Hi. I'm wondering why you declined the G5 on Benistar. Unless I'm missing something (quite possible), it was created on September 15, 2017‎ by Guruno. Sockmaster Vukhudo was blocked on 15 November 2016. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Kudpung, ah, great catch. Yep, my mistake, I forgot to check the sockmaster, I re-added it. Thanks for letting me know! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

[edit]

Happy Holidays!


Hello Drewmutt! Hope you have a great Christmas, New Year, or whatever you celebrate! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyBugz: Thanks buddy! I hope you have a great... Christmas.... Hanukkah err.. A day or series of days to celebrate, or not celebrate whatever it is you do or don't celebrate :D Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two lovely pugs

[edit]

We, the Wikipedia community as a whole, demand pictures. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pug (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: As an action I cannot control, I literally said "awwwww" out loud when I clicked the link! I just love the lil guys, I'll see what I can dig up over the break! Thanks for dropping a line! Exclamation! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas drew! I hope you're having a good one :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]
Happy Holidays

The white snow and the cool breeze beckon a festive mood,
And the sweet aroma wafting from eateries wreathes the mind.
Lights, stars, colour and jollity abound 'round each bend,
I wish you a happy holiday season, dear friend.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Editing can get tough and frustrating at times, but we've come a long way in this project and that is a grand achievement. Hope you have a good time this festive season! :) Jiten talk contribs 23:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Drewmutt, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. May you and your family have a Happy, Safe and Prosperous New Year!
 Happy editing,
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with economic models

[edit]

Thank you for your attention. Much improved IMO. Servalo (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

[edit]

Belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
This 26th December 2017 Force Radical wishes you a Happy New Year and a belated Christmas.
🎅🎄⛄❄️

 — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

[edit]
Hello Drewmutt, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

03:28:07, 2 January 2018 review of submission by MaryGaulke

[edit]


Hi Drewmutt! Thank you for taking the time to review my draft and give feedback. Could you please clarify whether both this Fast Company piece and this Diginomica piece are considered interviews rather than profiles? I've never run into this before, so I want to make sure I understand exactly what the issue is. Also, per WP:INTERVIEW, it sounds like interviews can be used to demonstrate notability: "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Am I interpreting this incorrectly? Thanks again for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Checking in. I'd really like to get this draft to a place where it's ready for publication, and I'm wary of proceeding without your feedback. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MaryGaulke: Hiya there, thanks for your patience with the holidays and all. The supplement you're referring to does a good job at mentioning how contentious this topic is, so it's not surprising there's some disparity around it's interpretation. Taken in context, I could see how an interview from a wide-scale international publication, like BBC and the like, could imply notability, but looking at the content of these articles they do consist primarily of content from the subject; constituting a primary source. I, and others may disagree, don't see FastCompany and Diginomica as the type of well established international publication, that would substantiate that portion of WP:INTERVIEW you cited. Again, there's many ways to interrupt that explanatory supplement and hopefully I imparted some insight on my implementation of it. Let me know if you have any further questions, and thanks again for reaching out. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is really helpful! I'm going to go back and work on adding in more non-interview sources before I resubmit. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag for Draft:Suiteness

[edit]

Thank you for taking a look at Draft:Suiteness. The COI point was already brought up by another reviewer and resolved. Any instances of non-neutrality have also been removed from the article per review comments left by previous reviewers. Reaching out as I do not see any explanations of non-neutrality on the article's talk page. Thanks! Dmulan123 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Dmulan123[reply]

Request on 16:08:57, 12 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Crisq1988

[edit]


Hey quick question, if there are more direct sources added would this article be approved as it is? Basically I'm asking is that the only problem? Thanks!

Crisq1988 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisq1988: Hi there, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "direct". Essentially, the issue with the draft is that they either mention the subject in passing, or barely mention him at all. In order to demonstrate notability, one has provide references to media outlets that discuss the subject in great depth. But, to answer your question, yes; aside from some severe issues, drafts should be weighed on the notability demonstrated, so it seems that's your most glaring issue. Hope this helps. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:20, 12 January 2018 review of submission by BlackWing112

[edit]


Hi, thanks so much for taking a look at my article so quickly. Totally respect your decision, but could I suggest that the references I've cited aren't that niche? Creative Review has been around for 40 years and is one of the most internationally respected publications for the creative industry. Design Week is a similarly well respected publication that's been around for decades as well. I guess each case is different and has to be handled on an individual basis, but I noticed that this article about Gregory Bonner Hale uses these same sites as references?

Again, thank you for taking the time to look at this, not trying to argumentative - just want to make my article a good one!

BlackWing112 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackWing112: Hi there, and thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, there's a good deal of content on Wikipedia that either needs to be improved or removed, it's just the nature of the beast. I tagged the article you mentioned for a potential lack of notability, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. I get that in their industry it may be a very good source, but you kinda answered your own question with "publications for the creative industry". In looking for reliable wide-spread media coverage, we need to assess the scale of the source's audience and industry journals, by design, are limited. I hope this gives you some insight, and let me know if you have any further questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:14, 15 January 2018 review of submission by StuartJMackintosh

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the OCA page.

As it is proving difficult to justify inclusion of this page, do you think it makes sense to merge this content in to the main Odoo page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoo?

StuartJMackintosh (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drewmutt/Archive_2&oldid=1079160473"