Jump to content

User talk:MaxnaCarta/Archive 1

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


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Such-change47, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Paula Denyer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers i do not understand what the point of editors constantly biting my head of is. i have made changes based on fact and they oeep being undone. Why not also leave a warning on the pages of editors clearly also violating the edit war policy? How am i meant to reach a consensus with people who point blank refuse my changes? MANY others support the change and its been suggested by others, but nope, experienced editors give zero credence or care to new rhiughts and shut down positive contributions. i dont know why this so-called Wiki exists when factual ans goood faith edits get reverted multiple times. There appears no way to edit articles I have expertise in. The other editors know nothing about the subject yet continually shut down my edit. My first go at trying to add something to this community has been met with nothing but inflexible application of beaurocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Such-change47 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Such-change47, editing Wikipedia does come with a lot of frustration, and there are times when I feel like editors enforcing "the rules" are just throwing pointless bureaucracy in my way to obstruct good-faith improvements. I am not much of an expert on any of the topics I edit about, but I hear there's a unique flavor of frustration that comes with being an expert, and having non-experts get in your way. You might like to read the essay WP:EXPERT which addresses that specific challenge.
I didn't leave an edit warning on the pages of other users because they are definitely already aware of the 3RR rule. If they break it, they could not reasonably claim a lack of knowledge as an excuse. There is some asymmetry here: as the one proposing a new change, the burden is on you to build consensus for it. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I would be more convinced if you could find any other sources that back up the podcasts claims. Given your expertise, is it possible you could publish the claims in a reliable source? I am happy to answer any other questions you have; again, I empathize with your complaint here, and hope there's a way we can avoid turning you off of editing. Firefangledfeathers 15:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers thanks for the understanding. I get that no-one is exempt from the need to provide evidence. I did provide evidence. The same woman who literally wrote the book on Denyer and has previously referred to Denyer as a woman, has stopped doing so and stated this is because prison sources confirm Denyer is back to male. I am the one who keeps being reverted here. I think people who revert good faith edits should have their own evidence too, there only rebuttal is we need to reach consensus? Well i checked that policy and unamanity is not required yet everytime someone tries to edit Denyers gender, one or two editors refuse to allow it. Denyers case is 32 years old and Petraitis is the only source of truth on the matters now as every detective on Denyers case has retired from the force, these detectives were also interviewed on the podcast i Cited. For editors to claim all podcasts cannot be reliable sources is patent nonsense. Podcasts are the millenial newspaper for many and properly resourced content should be considered credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Such-change47 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Such-change47, when you post on talk pages, could you please sign your posts using four tildes at the end? You are correct about those who oppose needing content needing to provide reasons, and also correct about consensus not requiring unanimity. Usually when a new change is disputed, we follow the Bold-revert-discuss cycle, which does put more of the burden on those proposing the change. Some of what you're saying here is specifically about the Denyer article, and I'd prefer to keep that conversation going at the article talk page. Glad to see you doing the Wikipedia Adventure, a great way to learn the ropes. Firefangledfeathers 03:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers thanks, yes I need to remember to sign off. It is not just the Denyer article that has caused issues. I am getting lots of suggested edits as newcomer tasks, and I look at the template messages, see what the issue is, and try to make edits based off the template issues. Then these seem to be reverted shortly thereafter. So I thought I better do the Adventure thing to learn more. I actually do not care if an error of mine is corrected, it is just frustrating to try and do what I thought were trivial, low risk things like editing Denyer which is a topic I know a lot of, and then the suggested edits, only to have the changes reverted constantly. You seem very patient and willing to explain the ropes, some others seem very keen just to revert, slap warnings or policies toward me, and then move on.Such-change47 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The newcomer tasks are a bit of an experiment right now, so you might be bumping into some bugs. FYI, I haven't been getting pings from you, and I think it's because you're copying my signature, which is a link to my user talk page. To ping someone, you can use a link to their user page (not talk) or some templates designed for it like Template:u or Template:ping. Some of this is on me for sure for not having a user page and therefore not linking to it in my signature. Firefangledfeathers 13:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

CoI

Hello Such-change47, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your commentary on the Paula Denyer talk page spurs me to ask: do you have any sort of conflict of interest regarding the case or Vikki Petraitis in particular (i.e. friends, colleagues, anything like that)? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:BubbaJoe123456 hi there, no I don't. It is just a topic of interest. I live in the area where Denyer killed three people and want an accurate article on the matter. That is it. I do not know Petrraitis personally. She is just an author and veritible expoert on Denyers crimes, and true crime in Melbourne. Yet despite being a person who has written hundreds of thousands of words on the matter and contacted Denyer herself, other editors say she is not a reliable source on Denyers gender.

I basically feel that because I am a new user and this is a flagged page, the gender edit has come up and now one/two editors appear to have made it their life mission to ensure i dont get my change through.

By making ONE change, I have attracted the attention of five different people? Way to welcome a new user, bombarded with written warnings and posts from strangers. How has something like this caught the attention of so many? Amazing.

It was posted at WP:BLP/N as mentioned on the article talk page. BLPN is full of people who care deeply about BLP so it's not uncommon issues will get a lot of attention. Especially when it may need it e.g. continued dispute and/or an editor continuing to make changes which seem questionable under BLP. Gender identity issues are particularly problematic since we tend to get a lot of editors who reject our guideline and try to force their view on how to handle gender identity issues into articles. Most commonly this is not for murderers, but as I said before ultimately it doesn't matter, for good reason our guideline doesn't allow us to misgender even them. I'd note in the article talk page, before you came, there were a lot of editors trying to change the article in clear violation of our guideline, including the IP who started the thread you replied under. (While I strongly disagreed with your change since the source is IMO insufficient, you were on of the few editors to at least partly respect our guideline.) I'd also note that on BLPN, a few threads above the one on Paula Denyer we have Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The Matrix Resurrections relating to an example where there was a persistent attempt by editors to misgender living persons mentioned in the The Matrix Resurrections article in this case where there was no dispute over the latest expressed gender identity of either person affected. (Indeed back to my earlier point, the podcast you used came out November 14 this year. And last I saw no one has shown any other source suggesting a dispute over the latest expressed gender identity of Denyer, further supporting the idea that anyone earlier trying to make a change was trying to do so in violation of MOS:GENDERID.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Such-change47! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 01:45, Thursday, December 9, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yarraville, Victoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division of Fraser. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Óscar Bruzón

He is not in charge of that team anymore.

@115.187.57.149: First, please sign your posts with four tiddles. Second, please post talk messages at the bottom of a talk page. Third, per my warning, add a citation when adding information about living persons, per WP:BLP. Thank you Such-change47 (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Mark Sargeant

Do you think the reference I added on Mark Sargeant#Legal problems is good? https://www.audacy.com/krld/news/local/judge-allows-flight-attendants-lawsuit-to-go-to-jury-trial
You opened this account on 3 Dec '21 and have already installed Red Warn and Twinkle? I'm behind the times! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Adakiko, yes it was great. I think that user is intentionally trying to remove negative commentary on the article subject. Perhaps promo? Definitely COI breaching, appears the account is solely focused on removing the negative information. I actually would not work out how to use Redwarn! But Twinkle is really cool. I have only been using it to warn for obvious vandalism etc :) Cheers Such-change47 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! It's always good to have multiple sources for something like that. I was hesitant to revert before checking for more sources. wp:Libel Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I did an oopsie: User talk:Adakiko/Archive 1#Important notice ! Adakiko (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
AdakikoI hope I did not do one also! Such-change47 (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I reverted thrice, you only once. So not the naughty as I! Thanks for your message on my talk page. Very big of you! Quite impressed. Most would try to hide. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Adakiko I know I am very new and so wanna be careful when giving warnings/reverting etc Such-change47 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

About my edits

I am extremely sorry for what I did I request you not to block me I promise I will never do that again 203.163.245.129 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

203.163.245.129 I appreciate the note, and I am glad the warnings were taken heed of. I have already reported you to WP:AIV and it is their decision on whether to place a block on your account. I have no idea why you have been making such blatantly destructive edits to various pages, but constructive to others. You seem to have some knowledge on how Wikipedia operates if you are aware of how to use a talk page. I kindly suggest you put these skills and efforts into constructive editing. Your random vandalism is not funny or clever. No blatant vandalism lasts for longer than a minute or so anyway, usually it will only be seconds before a user or bot removes it. Had an admin been checking your edits, you may have already been blocked. Please ensure you do not waste our time with intentionally unhelpful editing. Thanks very much. Such-change47 (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Gyaru

Hi! Thank you for your message; I've seen the Manual of Style warning before but I'm at a loss on how to fix additions I've made to the article before. Just as you said Wikipedia is a teamwork effort but this message has appeared before the changes I've made to the article, today; I genuinely am unsure how to make it more presentable and appropriate to the standards that Wikipedia holds. Could you please help or give me pointers on how to improve it? Thank you. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.99.169.177 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there 89.99.169.177, not a problem. I think it is important to pay attention to style. eg. 'These geners of' contains a spelling error. Given the nature of the content, it may be that you are a Japanese user with English not as your native language. If so, I humbly thank you for your contributions which are clearly in good faith. Please however, consult an online dictionary for any words you are unsure of. It is super important to not just add content, but also add content that is spelled correctly with proper grammar, formatting, and punctuation. Otherwise, the article will be tagged as needing improvement and this creates additional work for the copy editing team. Anyway, thanks for the message. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. May I kindly suggest signing up for an account also? It makes tracking your edits much easier. Such-change47 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted changes

What is the reliable source for the original version or reversions? We need objectivity of our judicial system which includes its many serious flaws. Trying to glorify our system is misleading to the public and permits continued corruption. 12.217.180.250 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You added subjective words like Bizarre in places that did not quite make sense. You also made stated "many experts" without a citation. Overall the edit did not really make sense or improve the article. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, please see wp:npov cheers. Such-change47 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Join WP:LABOUR

Welcome, I see you're interested in a number of Australian labour topics and I think you might enjoy Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!ShushugahSuch-change47 (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits made to the The_Unforgivable entry

Please do not refer to the edits I've made to the The_Unforgivable entry as 'vandalism of wikipedia'. Even if such edits were in fact an act of 'vandalism', they would not be the 'vandalising of wikipedia' as a whole but of a single entry. For easier orientation: If I were to stick chewing gum on the knob of a shopping mall toilet, I would not have had vandalized the shopping mall, I would not have had vandalized the door itself, I would have had vandalized the knob. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.93.251 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi 188.129.93.251 I placed a standardised third warning on your wall after you blanked an article for a third time and had already received two gentle warnings from others. Deleting large parts of an article is very rarely appropriate. Rather, gradual editing is required, with good edit summaries on each edit required. Section blanking by a new and unregistered user will trip edit filters. If I had not reverted the change, someone else certainly would have and given the previous two warnings, the third one I used would likely have been added. Thanks, and please do stay on Wikipedia and keep editing! Such-change47 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Australian Journal of Labour Law (December 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii 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:
See Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals).
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.
Rusalkii (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Such-change47! 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! Rusalkii (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Australian Journal of Labour Law (December 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mhawk10 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:
See Rusalkii's comments. Alternatively, you could demonstrate that the journal has received in-depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the journal and its employees.
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.
— Mhawk10 (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Information icon Hello, I'm Ïvana. Your recent edit(s) to the page Korean wave appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ïvana (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ïvana: please take more care when posting templates on pages. I did not add any information at all. I am a recent changes patroller and actually undid that information - I did not leave that information. Such-change47 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawJl/1997/16.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @Diannaa: and thanks a lot for all the work you do removing copyright. I understand this is a priority for Wikipedia. When I decided to review Dietrich v R, I did check the history and saw you'd previously left copyright warnings on another editors page. I went and looked up precisely what is and what is not copyright determined here. I am a little confused. I have published journal articles previously during my thesis at law school (I have ensured I do not write anywhere I have a wp:COI), and I very loosely paraphrase all the time. It is fine provided the source is attributed. I also publish in commercial texts, and loose paraphrasing does not violate copyright provided it's a small amount and attribution is made. I did this here, I very loosely paraphrased a few short sentences from a journal article. This constitutes fair use? It was also attributed. I know you do not have the time to hand-hold every new editor, but I come to Wikipedia with a lot of experience in writing legal journal articles and as a practising lawyer, it could be worth a moment of your time to please highlight precisely where I went wrong here? I did not copy text. That would be copy/pasting and highly problematic. A very short amount of text was paraphrased, I do not even think closely paraphrased? I do not even know what was deleted because that is hidden, and so now cannot re-write the work. Anyway, I hope you understand that I very much agree with the importance of copyright, and did not mean any harm. Will try even harder in future, however by citing the article I think this shows I was trying hard to add scholarly material...- Such-change47 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in summary style.
Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. You can see the highlighted content, which is identical to the source, not paraphrased at all.— Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
OK @Diannaa:, well I will just accept your advice at face value given your experience. Do you have any tips? Obviously aside from being more careful in future, is there a way to check my work using a tool like that? Looks much like turnitin used at universities to check work! Cheers Such-change47 (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
We do indeed use the Turnitin! They graciously donate us use of their service. Our CopyPatrol system uses it as part of our automated copyright detection. It can even compare with journal articles that are behind a paywall.
What you as an individual can do is use https://copyleaks.com/compare to compare your proposed text with your source document. That tool works best with short passages and you will only get a limited number of free looks per day. For Wikipedia, we primarily use Earwig's tool. This one has the drawback that the content must already be posted somewhere on Wikipedia, and we don't actually allow copyright material to be posted anywhere, not even in sandboxes or drafts. So it's best if you have it totally clean before you add it to Wikipedia. we also have https://dupdet.toolforge.org/ which can compare any webpage with any other webpage, but it's primitive compared to Earwig's tool.
Here is some general advice, if you are interested: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all this @Diannaa:. I'm grateful for the help, and also for not having a formal warning template or block issued. I hope I do not trigger the copyright filter again.-Such-change47 (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Such-change47! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Removal of text, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lloyd Clark Fletcher has been accepted

Lloyd Clark Fletcher, 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!

Numberguy6 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Australian Journal of Labour Law has been accepted

Australian Journal of Labour Law, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Whitewash of fact that shooter is inspired by a homosexual Frenchman

Whitewash of fact that shooter is inspired by a homosexual Frenchman

Why is there a Whitewash of fact that the shooter is inspired by a homosexual Frenchman? This has been demonstrated as factual. Ari bn Bem (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ari bn Bem: Because it is irrelevant and undue weight. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
You may rest assured the whole internet is learning who Renaud Camus is at light speed, come out of your Bronze Age Ari bn Bem (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Mako001. Such-change47 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Barnstars

I think it should be added to Mako001's talk page and not their user page. Unless you have permission, of course. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed after I left it. I got disorientated, I think because they moved all their barnstars over to user. I am going to move it back. Thanks Such-change47 (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Such-change47. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 06:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Fastily thanks for entrusting me with this. I will not let you down. Such-change47 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Lake-388x544.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lake-388x544.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey! @Fastily I believe this is your bot. I did respond to the rationale ground in the image summary. Please can you take a look and let me know? If it’s not appropriate, happy to delete. I did read the fair use criteria carefully and provide a response to each in the image summary. Cheers. Such-change47 (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I have attempted to start a discussion at Talk:Teal independents - would you please contribute to it? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, about to come over and discuss with you both, however I will not get involved "siding" with people. I just noticed you are both reverting - and this is a pretty trivial edit not significantly important to the article. Please avoid getting tied up in battles, and remember WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. Good work on establishing commentary on the talk page, thanks Such-change47 (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the discussion and inviting the other person to come and talk. Thanks also for your kind invitation to register, but I've been an informal member of the meta:Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle for some time now, as I believe it makes it easier for newbies and dabblers to contribute to Wikipedia if there are more IP editors who edit in solidarity. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
No worries. I definitely agree IP editors are important :) Such-change47 (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Genetically modified bacteria

hi, Such-change47.

You recently rolled back an edit I made on the article Genetically modified bacteria. I believe this to be a mistake.

I originally edited the section that I removed, but upon completion of that edit I realised that the article was on bacteria specifically and not genetically-modified microbes in general. The section I removed/edited only mentioned fungi, which are not bacteria and are hence irrelevant to the article. I understand now that my edit summary was too vague to convey this, I'm new to editing and will be clearer in future.

I hope this clarifies why I chose to remove the section. Thanks 2A00:23C8:3387:D001:D5F:94FC:14C1:2652 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, section blanking trips vandalism filters and unless a thorough reason is left it will usually be reverted very quickly. This is especially true on a specialist topic like this, where 99% of people will have no background knowledge, so it's harder to know what's relevant and what isn't. It's best to edit sentences at a time, try re-writing bit by bit rather than just blanking. If it's nonsense or harmful, leave a thorough edit summary or better yet leave a note in the edit summary to check the talk page and discuss it there. Thanks! Such-change47 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll be more thorough or try a different approach. Thanks for the advice! 2A00:23C8:3387:D001:DD23:D150:26CE:BFDC (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Your request

Hey there! Please note that I did state explanations for my changes in the edit summaries. 1) I removed two claims that are highly dubious, unsourced and likely original research. 2) I removed two airline routes where I did provide sources from the operators which confirm they are not scheduled - they have been added without a valid source (flightradar pages are invalid as per WP:AIRPORTS). I also fixed some naming issues which you undid without reason, please be more careful when using Huggle. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:1097:E501:1C51:957A:D7E0:CB0D (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I was perfectly careful, several deletions with little explanation were made in quick succession. If you had left an explanation like this when deleting the content, it would not have been undone. MaxnaCarter (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Bagrationi close

Hi, would you be willing to revert your close? The instructions in the relist prompted participants to develop policy-based consensus, and as the majority of keep !votes had zero grounding in P&Gs it would be essential for a closer to evaluate the outcome based on argument strength rather than numerical advantage. I'm not saying that the close wouldn't be eventually upheld, but the fact that there was ongoing discussion and dispute over application of guidelines really warranted an experienced admin close or relist and more thorough close reasoning. Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries JoelleJay. I undid Shabana Kausar also. If it is not too much trouble, do you mind please going through my other closes and letting me know if you think there are any issues? I have tried to stick to non-controversial decisions as a newbie. Thanks for letting me know about this, I do not want to tread on anyone's toes. I do see what you mean about the policy based argument, and I agree someone more experienced should close that one. Lesson learned. MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that, your reasonableness is a breath of fresh air! In general, if you're going for noncontroversial closes, I'd look for ones where there is broad numerical consensus and very little discussion, especially recent comments/!votes. When I was learning the ropes of athlete notability I specifically read ~200 of the latest archived AfDs that were over 10kb since I figured those would have the most extensive policy discussion; I think if you instead looked at the more average-sized AfDs (I would also avoid very small ones since anything with low participation makes it tricky to decide between closing and relisting) you'd get a good sense of the level or discourse "easy" closes have. You've already got a pretty good sense for weighing overall consensus, even with the more controversial discussions; it's just generally preferred that an admin takes those on since they have more accountability and are expected to be more familiar with guideline nuances than we regular editors are. Anyway, thanks again and good luck! JoelleJay (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
No worries JoelleJay, if some new user were to ask me to change my vote, I would not do so. But when I am dipping my toe into AFD closure, I am actually glad someone like you, an experienced user, reached out to let me know, due to AFD being a space where extra care is needed. Please ping me if you see me do anything silly! MaxnaCarter (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Christy Giles

Hi there,

I removed a big chunk of this page because it is quite clearly unrelated to the subject of the article - as I state in my explanation of the edit. It's a news article from April 2022, about a 24 year old model from California who died - who happens to share a name with the subject of this article. The Christy Giles of this biography was an Irish football player from the 1920s and 30s - so I think it's fair to say that he wasn't a 24 year old female model from California.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.167.249 (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

89.101.167.249 yes, you are correct. Thanks for letting me know. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Keep up the good work. :-) 89.101.167.249 (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your note on Microcreator!99's user page

You left your message on their user page rather than the user talk page. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do I do this @Adakiko? I need a good trouting. Thanks. MaxnaCarter (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing my request for proposed deletion

Hello sir, I can see you’ve deleted my request for proposed deletion. I know I’m a new user but all i understand that the information provided here is misleading. Kadoli belongs to rajput community and i know everyone personally that’s why I don’t want to mislead anyone. I’ve tried to edit it may times but people revert changes everytime I edit.

Have you ever visited india ? Have you ever been to kadoli ? I know everyone personally and they don’t want the wrong information about their community.

Can you help me ? By editing this page ? As I don’t know how to cite references. Or else please propose it for deletion if you cannot help me. Microcreator!99 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is inaccurate information, it is your job as a Wikipedian to edit it constructively with sources. I have indeed visited India, but that is irrelevant because you are the one asserting there is incorrect information and I have no knowledge on this place to form an opinion with. It is not an argument to state "I know everyone personally" and the information is "wrong". You need to slowly edit a page sentence at a time, and if you want to delete something, ensure you explain it fully without simply asserting the information is wrong. Please also remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground to defend a place you have lived. Find a source and make changes citing those sources which must be reliable and independent. Wikipedia is about editing boldly, and if someone reverts your edits, you discuss these on a talk page. If you merely revert their edits many times in a row, this may be considered an edit war.
For now, I am going to ignore this edit summary you left: "Giving False or Misleading Information is an offence under section 307B of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison".
Do not add say anything like this on Wikipedia again, as while as a first mistake I will let it slide, if it happens again it may be considered a legal threat, and these are not allowed here. Same with nominating an article for PROD or any other form of deletion - do not tag articles for deletion until you have thoroughly read policies on this and are certain what you are doing is correct. It is never okay to delete an article merely because you disagree with its contents.
I have written a lot for you to consider, and it is really important you take the time to read through all the links I have provided before returning to editing. The page will still be there for you to make changes to in a day or so.
To summarise:
  • It is your job to change articles if you see an error, using sources
  • If an editor undoes your work, discuss it on the talk page
  • Do not nominate articles for any deletion unless they meet the criteria
  • I recommend you do not nominate anything for deletion at this time because you appear totally unaware of our policies, which is normal and expected for a new user, so slow down
  • Do not use law to win an argument or make threats
Thanks @Microcreator!99- MaxnaCarter (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
okayy thankyou sir, i'll keep it in mind. Microcreator!99 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicorn DAO

Hi MaxnaCarter, I am wondering if you would consider changing your NAC close on this contentious discussion to a relist so an administrator can evaluate it. If not, I am hoping you can explain the policy basis for finding a rough consensus to keep. Thank you very much, Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Because I am new to closings, my personal policy is to undo any closure when asked and leave for an administrator, so will do so now. Thanks. MaxnaCarter (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Beccaynr I have reopened it as asked. I don’t see how this could possibly be determined as anything other than keep given the arguments after relist we’re all for keep. While of course AFD isn’t a numerical vote, I do consider that there is clear consensus due to the sheer volume of editors making policy based arguments. MaxnaCarter (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and from my view, the applicable guideline is WP:ORG, which is designed to help avoid promotional content by requiring a heightened standard for sources and specifically discounts the promotional aspects of sources that appear to be relied on by editors in the discussion, including one who has !voted twice and is an SPA and the creator of the article, another with 278 edits who states the 'new industry' is 'catching news rapidly', a non!voting IP making similar statements to the SPA/creator of the article, and another keep !vote acknowledging GNG is not met who has 78 edits and further states 'everyone thinks that merging and toosoon are the options so def not a delete'. There is also a comment noting that crypto-centric sources cannot be used to support notability. The remaining weak keep !voter is an established editor but does not reference the WP:ORG guideline or identify how the sources are 'enough' per this heightened standard. I realize it could have been helpful if tags were added to identify the SPA and the double !vote, and I will work on this. Thank you again for your willingness to undo your close so the discussion can continue. Beccaynr (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC) (updating my comment after further review of the editor's contribution history) Beccaynr (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I concur with the sentiment above. There is no chance you could have weighed the policy/guideline based arguments to evaluate consensus given the absolute nonsense provided as reasoning HighKing++ 21:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but if you think that SNOW applies to "no consensus", you have no business closing AfDs. In addition, "no consensus" closings should be left to admins (or highly experienced editors). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

two experienced users could not establish consensus and relisted it twice, and there’s been no discussion at all for three weeks. Fine, the policy of snow didn’t apply but what I mean was it didn’t have a snowballs chance of obtaining a consensus given the total lack of dissuasion in three weeks. You left out the rest of my rationale “WP:SNOW. Relisted twice with no further discussion in three weeks. There was still some time left to add comments, however the outcome of this AFD has become almost certain to the point it is not going to change before the time closes and no need to prolong discussion further. Not relisted for a third time per WP:RELIST.” MaxnaCarter (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Diplomatic Corps

Please reopen this AfD. Your reasoning, that consensus was weakly established, is not supported by the facts. There are two !votes to Delete (the nom and one other) based on a lack of sources. There are two !votes to Merge to World Jewish Congress (as an WP:ATD). There is one single !vote to Keep which quotes WP:GNG (the wrong guidelines as WP:NCORP applies) but provides no reasoning and no references to refute the nom. Finally, there's one !vote to "Weak Keep" with reasoning and some references. I cannot see any consensus to Keep and you should have left this to an admin. HighKing++ 20:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition, given the last couple of messages at your Talk page and your acknowledgement you are "new" to closing, my advice is to immediately stop and to gain experience through participation at AfD so that you can become familiar with our guidelines and processes. HighKing++ 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@HighKing I have just been trying to help. In staying I’m new, I’m just trying to be humble and cooperative because afd is a collaboration and so I approach helping with no ego and if someone wants it overturned I will do so. I have participated in 140+ AFDs with a 90% success rate and if you check my stats you’ll see I always give reasoning according to policy, and I’ve built up participation consistently. Also, I’m in Australia so I have woken up quite stressed to this barrage of messages. Please note the very first time someone asked me to undo my closing I immediately ceased closing and went and spoke with an administrator. I asked them to review my closings and they said there was “no reason” for me to cease. I am going to again reach out to Star Mississippi and work with them on establishing precisely how I can help out at AFD without stepping on any toes. I’m just trying to help - MaxnaCarter (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Just noting I've seen this. I'm online at the moment but it's late so may not be able to give it full read it deserves. Be in touch tomorrow afternoon (US time) at the latest @HighKing @Such-change47 Star Mississippi 01:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
No worries and no rush. I won’t be closing anything for a while regardless. I’ll keep learning. Thanks all. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you've gotten some good feedback here. What I would suggest is a little of what @Extraordinary Writ said below as far as learning through either more voting (which yes please as a closer!) and/or reading some of the more complex ones. HighKing's feedback here and in the discussions in which they participate is very detailed as to why a closer should make a decision based on one set of criteria or another. IS that helpful? If not, let me know what else I can provide. Happy to help. I will say as an admin/active AfD closer, my closes are still challenged. It comes with the territory, but I think you're doing well to learn the process. Star Mississippi 13:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks heaps @Star Mississippi. The feedback from a few does seem to be that no consensus ones ought to be left for an admin. I think I’ll keep building a track record at AFD for a few months before I close again. I have no issue with people wanting to challenge decisions, this is a team project. However if so many do not want a non-admin closing unless they are more experienced I better leave it for another six months or so I think. But I’ll stick around and vote more instead, and closing did show me that yep, often an extra vote can help make consensus clearer. Thanks heaps! MaxnaCarter (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Much Is Enough?

Hello, Such-change47; hope you're well. I was a bit surprised by your closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Much Is Enough? as keep: with the !voters evenly split between keep (Cunard, DonaldD23, and DeVos Max) and delete/redirect (TenPoundHammer, Lamona, and myself) and with both sides making reasonable arguments about whether the sources were enough to satisfy the GNG, I would have expected the result to be no consensus. Would you consider reopening the discussion so that an administrator can close it? I'd appreciate it. By the way, I see you're getting a few complaints about some of your closures. I used to do quite a few non-admin closures at AfD back in the day, but eventually I realized that it just wasn't the best way for me to spend my time: the main problem at AfD isn't a lack of closers, but a lack of !voters. The most useful thing that non-admins like us can do at AfD is to make thoughtful comments at AfDs, especially the tricky ones where consensus isn't clear yet. That reduces the number of AfDs with unsatisfying outcomes like "no consensus due to lack of a quorum", and it makes it easier for sysops to eventually close the discussion. Non-admin closes just have a tendency to rub people the wrong way, in my experience, and they can lead to a lot of unnecessary drama (and trips to WP:DRV). I hope you'll consider spending your time participating in AfDs instead—that way, your input can really be valuable. Anyways, just a thought; hopefully it's useful. Many thanks for all your contributions, and have a pleasant rest of your day. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Extraordinary Writ (btw, your wikiname is the best I have ever seen). Yep, I will undo, and I am not doing anymore closures. I thought I was helping, but it appears not! Happy to leave for an administrator or someone more experienced. Personally I do think the consensus was clear based on the strong weight of Cunard's sourcing, and you may be aware that there has been a bit of drama at ANI as to the number of noms made by TPH, the nominator. I thought I could help by going through their very long list of recent nominations and closing where I thought consensus was clear, and adding my thoughts to one where it was not. Thanks for the thoughts, I am not closing anymore because it does indeed seem to cause trouble, the opposite of my intention. Cheers. MaxnaCarter (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ - all done now. I really appreciate the advice. Before I started giving closing a go, I did not know closing keep/non consensus would matter to people. I know that deleting is next to a block, the most potentially harmful thing one can do to Wikipedia if done incorrectly, so I of course followed the non-admin closure guidelines and totally avoided closing anything as delete. I'm off closing for a very long time. Perhaps eventually when users see me around for a while, they may trust my instinct more and be prepared to accept them. Till then, I'll just participate and leave closing to the admins. If you see any other closing issues in my log and want them undone, please ping me. Thanks! MaxnaCarter (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

About speedy deletion of Nascent Information Technology Employees Senate NITES. The organization is doing a lot for the employees and is very prominent in India. You can Google search about the same as well. The organization is also a registered and recognised by Government of India. Requesting you to please look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianitblog1 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I placed a tag on Draft:Nascent Information Technology Employees Senate NITES requesting it be deleted because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The page Draft Nascent Information Technology Employees Senate NITES only had an information that it's a registered organization. I couldn't see any spam. Can you please support in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianitblog1 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Addition of the name of Reginald Carey's son

Hi Such-change47 You recently deleted the addition of my father, John Milton Carey, the son of Eileen Aurora and George Reginald Carey, to the Wikipedia entry for George P Carey [1]. My father is no longer living as you assumed (deceased 25 years on 12 June 1997) and there was no advertised notice of his birth on 24 December 1921 that we can find, we believe due to his illegitimacy. I can cite to the NSW Births Deaths and Marriages Record (Record number 7702/1922) [2].

Would that be sufficient?

Thanks for your attention! AprilJuJu (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AprilJuJu. Yep, missed that the subject was deceased when issuing that template, sorry for that. Editing about one's family is what we call a conflict of interest and usually this would need to be disclosed on the talk page. Given it's not a big edit, I am happy to put it in for you, if you can give me the source. Is the BDM link for his birth or death? Does it show George P Carey as the father? Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit of Deen Castronovo’s Wiki

Hi!

I thought I had explained my changes, but I see I didn’t. One was an incorrect date citation in one of the URLs, along with a dead URL. The other reason for the changes was the news media accounts weren’t in alignment with the public record of the court trial on the State of Oregon court records access website. I noticed a cohort of mine made similar edits without logging in, which they flagged for vandalism. I’m all for truth—even if it means digging a little, but if that doesn’t matter, carry on. KaytieKay (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit of Suzanne Landau’s Wiki

Hi Such-change47 or is it MaxnaCarta?, I just saw now the message you left me regarding my editing Suzanne Landau's article. first, that you for your detailed explanation on the decision and how to act in the future. Today I re-edit the same paragraph and added several sources for the information. I've explained the changes in the "Edit Summery" box. is that sufficient? all the best Maja.Jean.Pierce (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Maja.Jean.Pierce

Hi there @Maja.Jean.Pierce At the time, you made the edit from an IP address. It was removal of content without much explanation. A soft notice about removing content was left. If I made a mistake, you're able to make edits and justify your decisions in the edit summary. I must advise you of our Conflict of Interest guideline. Your userpage states you work at The Tel Aviv Museum. So, editing the pages of your employer and one of its curators is not encouraged. Most of your edits appear related to your employer. Thanks, MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maja.Jean.Pierce (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


About Govind Dholakia Draft space

Namaste MaxnaCarta Saw your message over mail via wikipedia. I felt little weird about why everyone wants to just delete a draft article. Just because earlier people wrote something on him which is blatant marketing but they were different. i am different. Refer Savji Dholakia , Pankaj Patel , Jamnalal Bajaj They too writing about personal & family details & other things around business. Please refer the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Govind_Dholakia there is no more details than name, family details and we are not even citing what sort of honors which he have received simple one award which he have received which too mentioned to show his identity recognized individuals & news papers within Wikipedia Guideline.

please requesting you to read it once again. Go through it with references with utmost truth without any biasness. Please allow this article and title to go further. feel free to connect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakshit23 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi to you too Brakshit23. I appreciate the message. That said, you have had this draft deleted three times. Please listen instead of endlessly recreating it. This article has not been uploaded to Wikipedia's mainspace - an Articles for Creation patroller will need to approve this and it will not be approved because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements which generally require coverage in a variety of different newspapers or books. There is plenty more to notability here, but in short a person will need media coverage from reliable sources like papers or books. This subject does not have this. On top of this, the draft serves nothing more than to promote Govind Dholakia and his company. It is not encyclopaedic. It's a vanity puff piece. Go back and read the message already given to you be JBW. Thanks.

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Govind Dholakia

Hello MaxnaCarta. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Govind Dholakia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac thanks, no worries. You may want to know another admin JBD has deleted this (please see here where the administrator described the creation as promotional, and note the editor has also removed some promo from the article since it was tagged), and it's been deleted thrice already? After it was deleted, the author then reported the deleting admin to ANI. Up to you though, I appreciate you letting me know. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac btw love your username! MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK

Do not add things to my talk page that I already removed. 80.44.237.238 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not add things to my talk page that I already removed. 80.44.237.238 (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
You have been reported to administrators for your persistent vandalism, restoring warnings so that an administrator can view them is permissable. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I have not vandalised anything. Undoing my own edits to my own talk page is blatantly disruptive. 80.44.237.238 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

— xaosflux Talk 21:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Places

I see you like to go new places. Might I suggest Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore someday. It's amazing. Have a wonderful day. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks gorgeous @FrederalBacon, one for the bucket list. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yusof Ishak

Hello MaxnaCarta.

Just would like to give a headsup that the edit you had approved on Yusof Ishak was part of a longrunning disruption by the blocked editor Arnhem555, who was insistent on adding many unsourced honours and a Jawi name to the page. You may see all of Arnhem555's edits here and the block notice. Just letting you know if you ever come across the page again.

Best regards. Seloloving (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know of my mistake. Have a nice week! MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Seloloving hey there, 111.65.71.203 is the address used for the edit I approved. The edit appeared legitimate. Will the IP be blocked too? Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta Unless the IP becomes particularly disruptive and insists on adding unsourced contents, I do not think there's a need to report the IP for now. If it resumes its behaviour, it can be reported as usual. Best regards. Seloloving (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Seloloving fair enough. The edits I approved are the only ones made from that IP, which is why I didn’t pick up that they were part of ongoing disruption. The blocked user must have IP hopped. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No rush

confused face icon Just curious...are you still with me re:NPPSCHOOL? Atsme 💬 📧 19:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme absolutely and you’ll see me progressing more quickly now because I just finished a long research paper I had to finish! Please rest assured I never start something I’m not gonna finish! Be with you soon. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
yes I admire your energy! Atsme 💬 📧 22:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme have the best Tuesday afternoon. It’s Wednesday morning here so from the future I can tell you it’s a good day. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision on Rajendra Chola

Hi if you read what I have deleted, you will find it is a repeat the previous sentences

Khmer Emperor Suryavarman I made war on the kingdom of Tambralinga (in the Malay Peninsula).

Suryavarman I requested aid from Rajendra. After learning of Suryavarman's alliance with Rajendra Chola, Tambralinga requested aid from Srivijaya, which was granted by Sangrama. This eventually led to the Chola expedition against the Srivijiya Empire. This alliance somewhat also had a religious nuance, since both the Chola Empire and the Khmer Empire were Hindu Shivaist, while Tambralinga and Srivijaya were Mahayana Buddhist.

King Suryavarman I of the Khmer Empire requested aid from Rajendra Chola I of the Chola dynasty against Tambralinga kingdom. After learning of Suryavarman's alliance with Rajendra Chola, the Tambralinga kingdom requested aid from the Srivijaya king Sangrama Vijayatungavarman. This eventually led to the Chola Empire coming into conflict with the Srivijaya Empire. This alliance somewhat also had religious nuance, since both Chola and Khmer are Shivaist Hindu, while Tambralinga and Srivijaya are Mahayana Buddhist.[citation needed]

I split the restored paragraf for your easier perusal so you can what is repeated. 103.122.202.20 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

OK MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Biodynamic agriculture page

Aloha,

Thank you for your response about not making the changes I suggested. I know a lot about biodynamic agriculture and while there may be mystical aspects to the practices the outcomes are not pseudo science. There is plenty of scientific research on biodynamic farming in terms of productivity, soil health, and other benefits to the method. It’s basically just regenerative methods with added spiritual components. That doesn’t make it all pseudo science. FMRSJR (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on you as the contributor to prove that with appropriate sources as the warning I left stated. I am not open to a discussion on whether or not the subject is or is not pseudoscience - any unsourced statement may be challenged. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Burlington Auditorium

Hello,

I dont know why you think my addition to the Burlington Auditorium was not factual. i added "pro wrestling" to the list of kinds of events held there. Countless pro wrestling events have been held there over the decades. Definitely more than 100. Ive attended some myself. Heres a link to just a small list: https://www.wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=shows&sort=ort&land=3&region=240&stadt=1136&arena=1570. Heres an article mentioning wrestling events held there: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/the-history-and-uncertain-future-of-burlingtons-memorial-auditorium/Content?oid=34366667. There are countless other sources on the internet, i can send you dozens. Its not even debatable. Pro wrestling events were held at the facility. Period. I ask you to reinstate my comment. Thank you. 2601:190:4300:F2C0:39E3:BF04:D96E:53A4 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the red paragraph at the top of my page. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caleb Finn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frankston. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hi MaxnaCarta. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Barbara Dawson

I did some BEFORE work, and this particular BLP does appear to be notable, at minimum a book author. She is also the subject of articles and interviews; for example this Irish Public Radio broadcast. I'm of the mind that her work as a historian, author and art director would fall under WP:Notability (authors). Look at the article creator's contributions. It could be the result of an WP:Editathon at an Irish University or small group WikiCon in Ireland. It is a notable stub that could be expanded, so find the appropriate the tag and remove the N tag. Go to the article TP, and start a new section, and explain that you have added a list of articles to expand this BLP, (and provide the list of the articles you have found)...unless you feel like expanded it yourself. Atsme 💬 📧 14:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Atsme. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Kenneth Binmoeller Edits

Hi MaxnaCarta! Would you possibly offer another example entry? Anthony Youn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Youn) is not only flagged for neutrality disputes but also under consideration for deletion. Would you perhaps flag locations in the article where the neutral POV is not being applied? I'll take portions of Youn's profile and attempt to emulate. DevaneyJohn (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Following up again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Warren is another profile we're hoping to use as well. Currently working on gathering Binmoeller's bio information to flesh out some sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevaneyJohn (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it is up to you to get the article up to scratch. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello again MaxnaCarta! Of course, and very much looking to get the article up to scratch. Your noted example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Youn itself was flagged for neutrality disputes and under consideration for deletion, was seeing if you had a better example or if you agreed that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Warren looked promising to emulate.
The areas that may lack a neutral POV would be ideal if you could offer one or two examples on the Binmoeller article you saw that you felt were less than neutral. Your original review stated, "See Anthony Youn for a better example of a doctor who is both notable and has a neutrally written article." DevaneyJohn (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I am not going to help a paid editor with their work in something other than educational topics. It’s on you. Please stop beating the same drum. Youn was improperly nominated for deletion and there is no dispute. Please stop messaging me about your work. I will not reply any further. Thank you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Just trying to help get Wiki articles correct, please do not be rude. DevaneyJohn (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Academy Graduation

CVU Academy Graduate
MaxnaCarta, On behalf of the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy, congratulations! You have successfully completed all assignments and have now graduated from the Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 96% – well done! It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past few months. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program and do always note that the motto of the Counter Vandalism Unit is Civility – Maturity – Responsibility. Do drop by my talk page you have any questions as I am here to help. Thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this CVUA role. Best. Cassiopeia talk 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Cassiopeia it’s been a fun time. A super challenging course. You really put students through their paces. I especially feel that brand new editors should have to go through your course because it really forces one to learn a little about almost every single important policy one can come across on Wikipedia for the normal user. Thanks for all the effort in tutoring me. I really appreciate you for that. MC MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi MaxnaCarta, You have been a very good student and did very well on the assignment and the final exam for you understand the guidelines and know how to apply it. Not sure I mention to you before in the program. English Wikipedia (every sister Wikipedia (different languages do have their own policies and operate independently from each other) counter vandalism is a flexible system. This means we dont nee to place lvl 1 warning if the vandalism edit is particular serious/gross, disguising languages / racial or sexual slurs/troll, we would pls higher warning level as per the counter vandalism editor's judgement. By the way, if you interested in new page reviewer program (NPPS) (which you will learn a lot and the long program by all trainers except Atsme which is a lot harder than CVUA), You can request for enrollment at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School. The long program covered notability, CSD, AfD, Prop, sources, tagging, COI, COPYVIO and etc topics). I am the one who initially set up the program and its topics, I believe you will benefit and learn all the valuable info/guidelines and how to apply them. I encourage you to enroll. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 10:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

TXO v. Alliance Review

Hey MaxnaCarta! I've found another independent source to add to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TXO_Production_Corp._v._Alliance_Resources_Corp. and significantly expanded the use of the two I already had. I'm wondering if you think this is good enough to resubmit, or if I need to find a fourth article. KiraLiz1 | she/her 16:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now approved this draft @KiraLiz1. I can see two journal articles which I consider sufficient for a legal case in addition to the case itself which appears appropriate for inclusion. An outstanding piece of work for someone with 150 edits. Are you a previous IP editor? You seem very familiar with formatting etc already and are contributing to a number of scholarly topics. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a previous IP editor but I really appreciate the statement! Most of my edits have just been from looking through random articles and finding stuff I want to change - TXO was a redlink I found during one of those trawls.
Do you think it would be appropriate for a DYK nom? I was thinking the 526-to-1 damages ratio might be a good hook. KiraLiz1 | she/her 22:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@KiraLiz1 never hurts to try. I’m not super knowledgeable on DYK but if you feel it meets their criteria then give it a go, why not. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Meriwether Lewis Electric Cooperative

Hi there! I see you just denied this article on grounds of WP:N. I believe this is incorrect, as the article is sourced with in such a manner that includes significant coverage by multiple, independent sources including major media outlets, government records and documents, published books, et cetera. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

The organization and individuals associated with it have participated in government-led efforts to include participation in foreign aid programs, as well as lobbying and as witnesses before the US Congress. This is in addition to its notable role in rural electrification in the United States. As far as coverage, it has been the subject of reports in both the New York Times and the Tennessean, two major newspapers, as well as smaller newspapers across the United States, thereby fulfilling the second standard.

If you still do not agree, I'd appreciate feedback as to why you do not believe this article is considered noteworthy, considering the points I've made above. Thanks again, and have a great day! nf utvol (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I declined it for the same reasons as the previous reviewer.
please complete an NCORP source assessment table for at least 4 sources then ping me on the draft talk page rather than here. I’d like to see significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent. Coverage must be in depth. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta okay, will do, thank you for the feedback. nf utvol (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nfutvol no worries. Also I see I mistakenly rejected this instead of declining. I’ll leave it for now as I’m happy to work with you on a second assessment. However if after you present me your source table and I still refuse to accept the article, I will undo my rejection and allow you to submit the article for another reviewer. Just remember, it’s insufficient for something to be important. If there isn’t enough coverage for the subject to meet the notability guideline for organisations and companies (which is quite a high bar to meet compared to the general notability guideline), then the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Draftification

Hello, MaxnaCarta,

If you are going to be moving recently created main space articles to Draft space, it's best to use a script to do so, one that will notify the page creator. Most editors make use of User:Evad37/MoveToDraft which handles things smoothly. Also, please tag the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2, so that admins can delete it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz thanks for this! Still getting used to things at AFC and NPP, so appreciate the heads up. Do you need me to tag that specific page now for SD, or do you want me just to be aware for future and you are going to SD? Do you think my draftify was appropriate in the circumstances? Using my time as a newbie in this space to seek feedback so I get into good habits from the start. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Liz I see it is deleted. Thanks a lot. Please please keep letting me know if you see me making other mistakes. Please. I know (because I have seen) some editors get defensive when admins let them know about things, but I want to know because I believe in "never f*ck up the same way twice" and this is the only way I will learn. Thanks again! MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen's Counsel

Can you please be careful doing mass changes from QC to KC, such as at Bar Association of New South Wales - it is only those who are still alive for whom the post nominal changes. Find bruce (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Find bruce I am doing some research. It's actually confusing as to whether people who died before a monarch then retain the same post-nominals after death. Can you point to the source which states which is true, or whether they inherit the new ones? I just had a conversation with a barrister who insists that every post nominal relates to whichever is the current monarch. However as I do not have a source I will revert back to QC for all who were granted this title by QE and died before she did. It is certain though - living counsel now inherit the King's initial instead. It would be interesting to know why this would not also apply to deceased. Frankly I wish the entire lot would just revert to SC and make it easier :)
Have a good day! MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes the Australian Bar Association put out an update to that effect [1]. It has been the practice for all of those who had letters patent between Victoria & Eliabeth, eg George Reid, Edmund Barton, Albert Piddington and many others to retain the post nominal KC. As for the category, I would suggest there is no need for separate categories. If you feel it is useful, I would suggest proposing to change the category name to Australian King's Counsel. Find bruce (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Find bruce thanks, yeah let’s just keep them as they are. Otherwise it could be a headache. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Ian Barker.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ian Barker.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Your close

Hello, just wanted to say I thought your closing statement was reasonable and justified the keep decision (though it could also have been a "no consensus"). I certainly don't think the delete argument is compelling and hope the closing admin will agree. NemesisAT (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @NemesisAT! Means a lot. I will always undo a NAC request because the last thing I want is to tie up DRV without excellent reason. There’s never harm in allowing it to continue instead of digging so I just let go. I do think the keep arguments are weak but when there’s so many good faith editors making one case against another, it’s hard to invalidate without evidence of canvassing, SP or some other breach. Appreciate you reaching out. See you at AFD! MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
No problem, I think you did the right thing by reverting the close in these circumstances and I'm glad it has now been closed again. Garuda3 (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ian Barker.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ian Barker.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pankhurst wedding.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pankhurst wedding.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Lara Sharma

Hi,

I saw you asking elsewhere if you thought it was appropriate to bring the article to AfD but I don't think you got an answer. If you've done a thorough search and can't find anything, go ahead. Footballers need at least two pieces of significant coverage just like anyone else and the article currently lacks that. Hope this helps! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @MarchOfTheGreyhounds will go back to it. I am cautious with sports people and footy players because they’re often contested for various reasons. I’m best with biographies and NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, football AfDs can be a bit contentious. There seem to be a lot of editors who will argue against deletion based on the old NFOOTY guidelines which allowed players an article if they'd played in a fully professional league or at international level. Good luck if you decide to wade in! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@MarchOfTheGreyhounds I nominated it and someone found sources I didn’t. Please can you take a look? I may need to speedy keep if those sources are appropriate. This is why I don’t bother with sport aha. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234 you also nominate a lot of sport articles. Can you please weigh in? If you two think it’s a keep I’ll close early. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta I need to do further analysis of the sources but I have concerns about many of them. So I suggest don't withdraw yet. I'll comment on the AfD shortly. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
No worries @MarchOfTheGreyhounds. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you withdrew the nomination which was probably the right call. But don't worry, these things happen. If you ever want to ask me about future AfDs in sport or other subjects, feel free! Thanks. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@MarchOfTheGreyhounds yeah. Especially once snowman voted keep I knew it was time to withdraw because they always vote delete so for them to vote keep means it was an error. I don’t even know where these sources came from because they didn’t show up when I tried. I’m gonna avoid footy players. A shame because lots of them come up in new pages. Oh well! I’m still learning. Cheers mate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's okay, the user whp found the sources is quite good at diggint them out. If you notice any football articles you think are particularly egregious, you can point them put to me if you want and I'll consider doing a check and making a nomination. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Why pipe to a misspelling?

Could you explain this edit in which you introduced a misspelling of Ilse Crawford? Thanks. PamD 07:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@PamD, hello! Are you wanting an explanation merely for the misspelling? If so, call it a typo or error? Not sure why you’ve asked me to “explain”. It’s just a mistake. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't just a typo as you'd taken the trouble to pipe from your misspelling to the correct spelling, so I was puzzled whether there was something more complicated going on here - like you thought you "knew" the right spelling. PamD 07:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@PamD I can’t be the first person to mistake to accidentally use two letters. I didn’t manually link - I use the visual editor rather than source and so I’ve typed her name and then highlighted and typed in her name and voila, it comes up. So yes, it was a mistake and I welcome it being amended. Are you thinking there was some sort of sinister reason for this? I found your note a little terse given we have never spoken. Thanks for fixing my typo. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if it seemed terse, but I was genuinely puzzled why you'd linked the wrong spelling to the right one ... I suppose it's very easy to pick the right spelling from a drop-down menu of suggestions even when it doesn't match what you've typed. We all make mistakes, this one just puzzled me by its complexity! Sometimes "helpful" dropdown menus, like spellcheckers, can be unhelpful. Happy Editing! PamD 07:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
No worries @PamD. Perhaps not terse. Simply not mincing one’s words I suppose which is fine, but when someone as experienced as you said “can you explain” I was just worried. All good, did it trip a redwarn/edit filter? MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it generated "A link has been made to this page", as I had created Ilse Crawford, and I was then baffled by the apparent decision to spell her wrong and link to her page! Easily done, I can see: make a perfectly normal typo, and then not notice that the link being offered was to a slightly different spelling. We all need to check our work more carefully - I had great fun yesterday trying to disentangle 4 different Glyn Hughes which were linked as one ... which led me to finding a source which consistently got one of them wrong, to the extent of misspelling the hospital named after him! (Another double letter problem: Glyn or Glynn). I did literally mean to ask for an explanation, as it puzzled me, as someone who doesn't use Visual Editor, but I see now how it came about. All good now. PamD 11:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@PamD no worries! Go take a look at the store she created in Mayfair for Aesop! It is just stunning! Such a beautiful work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not often in Mayfair - trips to London are usually based around appointments at Royal Free Hospital (so British Museum, Camden Market, etc). How about finding and adding a link to its GradeII listing at NHLE? PamD 12:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I actually meant virtually @PamD because I forgot that most of the world does not live on your England’s former penal colony like I do downunder. What’s NHLE? MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the store she designedhere. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
And that branch now seems to be closed. PamD 12:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
National Heritage List for England: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/ - has details of all Listed Buildings. PamD 12:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@PamD I’m actually so sad that’s closed :(
Thanks for the good chat! Time for bed in Oz zzz MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Parichaya

Hi Sir , Already 3 reviews have been added to the draft ( Draft:Parichaya ) . I have found some new sources, you check once. New Source  : 1) Music Review Bangalore Mirror [2] 2) Shooting Started Bangalore Mirror [3] 3) Shooting Completed [4] Deccan Herald 4) Coverage Deccan Herald [5] PravinGanechari (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari hi. I assessed this article against the criteria set out at NFILM, which state a film needs to meet the general notability guideline - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I am not really seeing significant in depth coverage. These are rather trivial mentions, very short mentions of the film. The reviews are not full length reviews by nationally known critics. No other evidence of notability per WP:NFO. I personally am not prepared to accept this draft and move to main. I need to be comfortable before putting my name to the move and I am not. I've asked Daresh their thoughts, if they or someone else wants to approve it then resubmit and leave for another reviewer.
@DareshMohan hi there, I see that you have been editing this draft and have experienced over at the Indian film project. Thoughts on this draft? MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, ignor PravinGanechari (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Rediff.com, Deccan Herald, and Bangalore Mirror are "nation-wide" critics. India, unlike most countries, speaks more than one language. For Kannada, there is one state Karnataka and these are very prevalent newspapers. With 2+ reviews, passes WP:NFILM imo. DareshMohan (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@DareshMohan thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@PravinGanechari please resubmit and I will approve. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, Thank you PravinGanechari (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Doft

Hi @MaxnaCarta!

Thank you for reviewing my article Draft:Doft. As per the your question, please find attached a source assessment table in which I have added different sources covering the company. Hopefully, this information will help you. I still believe that the rejection can be undone and the article can be accepted, considering the information provided. Thank you, brother, and have a nice day (it's evening though for me in Los Angeles now)!

Source Assessment Table
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary?
https://startupbeat.com/6-break-out-apps-disrupting-the-trucking-industry/25515/ * Green tickY (two paragraphs about the subject, and the first in the list) Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
https://startupbeat.com/startupbeats-20-under-50-female-leaders-in-tech/33974/ * Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
https://www.truckinginfo.com/157475/how-disruptive-will-uber-freight-be-for-trucking Green tickY (a whole section with multiple paragraph covering the subject) Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY (a narrative piece that includes—but is not limited to—a couple of quote from the co-founder)
https://handyshippingguide.com/shipping-news/uber-for-us-freight-trucking-new-app-service-goes-country-wide_7822 Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY
https://www.ajot.com/news/freight-shipping-legend-pat-hull-joins-startup-doft-as-an-advisor Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
https://www.the-blockchain.com/2017/09/21/disruptive-truck-sharing-company-doft-sells-doftcoins-to-truckers-3pls-and-freight-shippers-with-50-discount-during-pre-ico-doft-announces-50m-ico-to-its-user-community-in-its-strive-to-innovate-th/ ** Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
https://www.fleetowner.com/technology/article/21696235/doft-partners-with-vhi-transport * Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY
https://www.fleetowner.com/technology/article/21696383/doft-integrates-with-posteverywhere-to-simplify-freight-posting * Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY 
Notes:
*: I recognize that two pieces from the same publisher are considered one source.
**: I recognize that blockchain journals and crypto-tailored media outlets are not considered reliable for establishing the notability for coins. I included it as part of establishing the notability of the company and not the coin.

Df28-2022 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

NB: Discussion continued on draft talk page. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Creating redirect of the HCA Florida Kendall Hospital article

Hi MaxnaCarta! I recently noticed that you created a redirect in place of the HCA Florida Kendall Hospital article I created with a summary stating: "Redirecting as new page reviewer, article does not meet notability standards for stand alone article per NCORP/ORG." While I do feel like the article likely meets the definition of NCORP/ORG, the standard I usually reference for notability of hospital articles is the Wikiproject Hospital standard (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials). This standard for the notability of hospitals states, in part, the following: "Articles about hospitals, clinics, and related organizations must comply with the WP:ORG notability standard, which requires, as an absolute minimum: that the hospital has been noticed by two unrelated, independent third-party sources that at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth (many paragraphs directly about the hospital) that at least one source that is outside of the organization's local/service area, including state or national recognition as a trauma center or medical specialty center. In practice, large, regional hospitals will almost always meet all of these standards, particularly those designated as Level I trauma centers. Verification or designation as a trauma center of any level is sufficient to represent a source that is outside the organization's local area." The article has been noted by more than two unrelated, independent-third party sources (including Miami's Community News, Florida International University, the Florida Committee on Trauma, Florida Department of Health, and the American College of Surgeons (ACS).). The article references one source (Miami's Community News) that has two in-depth articles about this hospital) and it is recognized by the state of Florida as a burn center and by the state and ACS as a Level I trauma center. As a 447-bed Level I trauma center, I also feel this hospital meets the above description of notable by being a "large, regional hospital" that is "designated as (a) Level I trauma center." If you would prefer, I could add more references from unrelated, independent sources. I have not yet reverted your last edit of creating the redirect because I wanted to discuss with you first. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaxnaCarta, please let me know if you have any objection to me restoring the HCA Florida Kendall Hospital article. If I don't hear anything, I'll go ahead and restore, but I wanted to check with you first. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@Wikipedialuva sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner- if you feel it meets notability you have the right as an editor to undo the redirect as much as I had to create it. Thanks for reaching out and appreciate your patience. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Veiled Experts

Hello @MaxnaCarta,

Few weeks ago, I asked for a review on the draft page that I've been working on and you concluded that the page was not suitable for Wikipedia, and it was a fair judgement from you in my opinion.

It was my first time working on an article and did not fully understand the ins and outs of creating a Wikipedia page at the time.

However, I've made few changes to the draft since then and wanted to know if you could point out some of the things that I should work on to post the page? ( Draft:Veiled Experts )


Thank you! Hyccc20 (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hyccc20.
Please provide me with a source assessment table demonstrating significant coverage in appropriate sources. Please place onto the draft's talk page and then ping me here when done so I can assess. I would like an explanation as to why you decided to move the draft through to mainspace without seeking advice. You were advised to go through the AFC process after attempting to move the article through on your own. I please also seek explanation as to why your edit history of 39 contributions appears solely dedicated to getting this article draft created and moved to Wikipedia mainspace. I please seek an explanation on how you immediately had the skill to draft a formatted article, and knew which areas to request assistance at.
My concerns are:
1. That you have consistently tried to find ways to push the article through regardless of feedback
2. That you may possibly have an undisclosed conflict of interest and/or are a paid editor that has failed to disclose this
Of course, I have suspicions rather than evidence and so I assume good faith but please seek an answer to my concerns.
Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, these are valid assumptions based on how I have tried to push the draft page over to the main page. I will find time sometime next week to work on providing you with the assessment table and ping you once it is ready for a review! However, the reason why I tried to push the draft to main page is because I just wanted to show my friends that there is a Wikipedia page for the game that we have played during the beta. Nothing less and nothing more than that whether you can believe me on it or not :/ And the reason I kept asking for a review was because I didn't genuinely understand why it was being rejected for. I guess that is on me for not reading the page more carefully, but it's my first draft on Wikipedia, so I naturally got frustrated with a lack of knowledge on the process here.
I just want you to know that I am willing to put in the work to make the page up to the standard on Wikipedia, however long it takes. Thank you for taking time to give me feedback on this!
I will ping you here again once I complete some of the tasks you have asked me to do for the draft page :) Have a nice day! Hyccc20 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I would not work on the article before showing me sources @Hyccc20. Demonstrate significant coverage in two reliable sources and I can help you clean the article up and get it moved to main. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are close to Wikipedia kryptonite - they kill most (not all) discussions about whether a topic belongs here. Show me sources, the article is likely appropriate. Also, I assume nothing - my points are concerns, not conclusions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @MaxnaCarta.
I've found a few sources about the game I was drafting. Although I tried to look for sources in English, I couldn't find anything reliable. However, I was able to fish out some solid game review pieces from Korean presses. They seem like a proper review of the game rather than a vanity piece like the English ones, and hopefully, they are suitable to be used as sources for this article. Please let me know what you think of these sources! Thank you.
Review of VEILED EXPERTS on the Gametoc section of Hankyung News before Nexon Games began the beta test on Steam: https://gametoc.hankyung.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=66470
Review of VEILED EXPERTS from Kuki News during the beta test on Steam: https://www.kukinews.com/newsView/kuk202206170107
Review of VEILED EXPERTS' alpha test from Game Meca, a Korean game review site: https://www.gamemeca.com/view.php?gid=1671811 Hyccc20 (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Victorian Human Rights Commission.png

Thanks for uploading File:Victorian Human Rights Commission.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Scott Woodward (Branding Executive)

Scott Woodward is a globally recognized branding executive and with clear media coverage on the internet. He has been at the forefront of some well-known marketing campaigns for noteworthy brands/companies. There might be some issues with the draft so it shouldn't be deleted but moved to the draft section where i can along with other editors work to improve it. I believe this decision is too abrupt and needs to be reconsidered.

AIstruckbob (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @alstruckbob, and I know that it is disappointing to have an article deleted. I just want to provide you with some feedback on your edits and why I feel you keep struggling with articles being deleted or rejected. You have 169 edits and a track record of creating articles that are inappropriate in their topic or of unnacceptable quality for publishing to mainspace. Draft:Abaka (company) was rejected at Articles for Creation due to a lack of notability and then the draft was abandoned and subsequently deleted. Another article you created was moved to draft space, blanked by another editor, and you have not worked on it since. You submitted this draft of a biography of a living person without a single reference! and have failed to improve it since. So when I saw this unambiguously promotional article of a non-notable person, I exercised my discretion as a New Page Review to nominate the page for speedy deletion. Please be advised that this nomination was then reviewed by an administrator, someone elected by the Wikipedia community to make important decisions on page deletion. Sometimes, if a page is totally promotional but on someone notable, I will instead clean-up the article or draftify it and let the editor know. I clean up many promotional articles to save them. This article needed a fundamental re-write to be neutral and encyclopaedic. Couple that alongside the total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and I stand entirely by my decision to nominate it for deletion. I strongly recommend you take The Wikipedia Adventure course and learn more about what kinds of articles the project accepts before attempting to write another, otherwise the same outcomes are likely to eventuate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP of Health Liberation Now!

Hey, I was also in the process of reviewing that article as it popped up on my watchlist. Aside from a slight section which I re-worded to avoid a copyvio, and adding the same {{notability}} template, I was about to flag it as reviewed per the NPP flowchart. I saw that you've not marked it as reviewed yet, and was wondering if you had any other concerns about it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I thought notability was borderline. Normally this would mean the article is draftified - but I felt like exercising discretion and leaving feedback, allowing another editor to review for second opinion. If you feel it's okay, that's fine with a tag. It is very unlikely to survive an AFD discussion so moving to main should be okay. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmmmm. If you're only applying WP:NORG, I can see that to an extent. It has a much stricter criteria when it comes to significant coverage than WP:SIGCOV, in that it discounts mention and use of the organisation when it's not the main focus of the source. But WP:GNG seems to have a broader interpretation that allows for non-trivial mentions in sources where the article subject is not the main focus of the source article. Between the Xtra Magazine article which is indepth, and the summation of use in the other media sources, I think it meets WP:GNG even if it fails WP:NORG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme was my tutor for NPP School. I am just looping her in here, not for her to make a ruling on this article (I am perfectly happy for you as a reviewer to accept it) but rather if Atsme: please can you clarify - I believe that GNG does not apply to companies/organisations - they must meet NCORP/NORG, right? We intentionally have a stricter criteria for organisations/companies to prevent low notability entities slipping in. Either way Sideswipe - this is why I did not mark the article as reviewed. Per NPP rules, if in doubt, leave for another editor which is what I did. You can certainly exercise your right to review however!
(Atsme, for context I saw this article, did not review, but left a note for the author on their TP that more sources may be needed and left it at that. All well and good, no-one here is angry! Just genuinely confused whether NORG or GNG applies) :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how it passes WP:NOTADVOCACY because as it currently sits, the article is non-compliant with NPOV. Another thought...when you get into material about health issues, you are also getting into WP:MEDRS requirement. Atsme 💬 📧 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Though this is perhaps a discussion for the article's talk page, I don't see how this fails NOTADVOCACY. While the organisation is unquestionably an advocacy organisation, NOTADVOCACY does not prevent us from having articles on advocacy organisations should they prove notable, and indeed we have a great many other articles on advocacy organisations across the political and sociological spectrum. Via a pretty thorough reading of the sources used, this does seem to report objectively on what those sources say. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Read the New York Times section and then read the actual New York Times article. Do you see any mention in that article about Health Liberation Now or it's founders? Look at the cited sources – they cited themselves and the Texas Observer because they are upset they were not published. Wow – speaks volumes to their notability, does it not? NPOV is an issue for certain – advocacy articles typically are non-compliant with NPOV – it is rare when they are not. 🚩 If you cannot see the NPOV issue, then perhaps you should take it to NPOVN and get more input. In the interim tag it with a NPOV tag and group a few more tags with it for (a) having a lead that's too short, (b) more RS, and (c) MOS issues. Draftify might be the best choice. Atsme 💬 📧 00:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme thanks! For future, if an article falls under SNG, such as an organisation falling under NCORP - it must meet the more stringent criteria under that SNG, am I correct? If an org/corp fails NORG/NCORP, this means the lower notability standard of GNG doesn't apply, is that right? MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Wait what? Are you accusing TheTranarchist of being one of being either Ky Schevers or Lee Leveille? Because aside from some minor copy-edits by myself to avoid a copy-vio and to add a wikilink, and MaxnaCarta adding the notability tag, they are the only editor to have edited that article.
Otherwise, I cannot follow the logic. Bazelon's NYTimes piece attracted a significant amount of controversy both on social media and within other reliable sources. The article on HLN contains the criticism that was relevant to HLN, to avoid coatrack issues.
However we have strayed pretty far from the original question, was just restated by MaxnaCarta. So if we could focus on that, and perhaps you and I could continue the side discussion either on the article talk page, my or your talk page, or NPOVN? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
No, I was talking about what they did here about the NYTimes author "During this email exchange Bazelon referenced Leveille’s report When Ex-Trans Worlds Collide". Hmmm, I did not notice the article creator's name until you just brought it up. That user name suggests a potential COI with these types of articles which may explain the NPOV issue. As reviewers, those are questions that we may need to ask the article creator in a very polite and helpful manner because it is important to AGF. Atsme 💬 📧 01:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: can you please point out any specific NPOV issues in the article so I can address them? I collected what every source had to say about them, and they all tend to describe it in the same terms (trans led advocacy organization that researches political attacks on transgender rights). There was a discussion in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard I started (and admittedly poorly formatted and need to relist properly) over whether we can consider them a WP:RS for reports on attacks on transgender rights, which covered how every source described them and links to them.
I included a reference to the letter in the article because it was mentioned in the Texas Observer, and as Sideswipe9th stated, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the article and who it considered acceptable to speak on trans topics. I used two independent sources to describe their motivations for founding trying to take care to use the language in the sources (demarcating what was attributed as quotes and what was stated in the article's voice as fact). In the Activities section, apart from the NYT controversy, I similarly followed that policy and described 1) their reporting of anti-trans clinic protests 2) their "New Era" report 3) their mapping project and 4) their reports of cross-over between gender critical groups and the far right which were all covered in the Xtra Magazine piece.
Also, if being transgender means there's a conflict of interest in writing articles relating to transgender topics I'd love to hear more about that... Frankly, I've heard it before, usually as a gotcha to sidestep actual WP:POLICY or sources I've raised (not saying you're doing that, it just happens and gets old), and my editing speaks for itself: I cover transgender topics often and thoroughly. Also, to clarify, I am indeed neither Ky Schevers or Lee Leveille, though I have the utmost respect for the work they do. I've been planning to create this article for a while, I left a redlink to them in the article on Genspect.
In terms of notability, MaxnaCarta left a message on my talk page where I responded that the coverage in Xtra Magazine and probably that in the Independent as well met WP:SIRS in WP:NORG. And in terms of WP:TOSOON, that's an essay that says nothing about organizations and fails to cover how relatively recently formed groups can have extensive coverage while groups formed a while ago can have little. It only says If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered, pointing out sources may not exist for a recently formed organization as opposed to saying they're invalid.
Regardless, I'm about to take another look at the page and try and improve it best I can, extending the lead (though it feels it succinctly covers the group), trying to dredge up more sources, and fixing some typos I spotted. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Maxna, if it is not a clearly notable organization that has been around for a while, and can easily pass GNG, and SNG, they fail (and this one was just created last year which is another 🚩 WP:TOOSOON). A year is barely enough time to be an organization, much less SIGCOV. Atsme 💬 📧 01:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks @Atsme @TheTranarchist please see. I really feel you should draftify. This was my first gut feeling. However I did not, because I when in doubt I leave for another reviewer per NPP guidelines. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
It's all good! And it's definitely a good question to find out the answer. My understanding is that either GNG or a specific WP:SNG can apply to articles, as most SNGs lay out alternative criteria that allow for notability in other verifiable means. WP:NORG#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations does state that there are three paths for demonstrating organisation notability, either the alternate criteria like NONPROFIT, the primary critera, or GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@TheTranarchist: just confirming that being transgender does not confer a COI. That would the same as saying that men have a COI editing about men. But your user name does indicate you may have strong opinions on the topic, which means it will be more difficult to write neutrally. I've written about topics I'm passionate about, and can tell you that it always takes quite some extra effort to make them neutral. The best way to maintain neutrality is using only what other people have said about them, rather than using quotes. As it currently stands, the article does not meet WP:NPOV because of the use of quotes. If you want to improve the article, contract rather than expand.
@Sideswipe9th: that is really confusing. The 'primary criteria' are just the strict interpretation of GNG, so it does not make sense to state that people can choose between GNG or the primary criteria. I don't know the background of that text, but please apply the primary NCORP criteria.
As for notability. In its current state, there seem to be two articles that may contribute some to GNG/NCORP (1) Xtra (full length, but unfamiliar with reliability of the source) and (2) Texas observer, which dedicates 60 words to the organisation, on the low side for GNG (Wikipedia:One hundred words). Those together do not satisfy GNG, nevermind NCORP. The Independent source is not independent, as it consist mostly of quotes by Leveille. With the concerns about neutrality added, draftification is likely the best option.
I'm mulling over the best way forward here. NPP is often the last opportunity we have to teach new editors how Wikipedia works, and to ensure mainspace doesn't have article that are not ready for it. So this review concerns me. I'll look over the rest of your patrols later tonight, and may have to revoke the user right if I spot more problems. In the meantime, please do not patrol borderline articles yet, and leave that to more experienced reviewers. A good way to learn is to watchlist them, write down what you would have done, and revisit when somebody has reviewed. Femke (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Femke: So that I don't cause you any more work than is necessary, I'll hold off on all patrols for now so that I don't add to the workload. If there's any that you wish to discuss, to understand my thinking/rationales I'm of course happy to do so. I'd prefer if we could hold that discussion (if necessary) over on my or your talk page please, just so that we're not filling MaxnaCarta's notifications.
I will of course also take onboard what you and others have said here with regards to NCORP and GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: @Sideswipe9th: @Femke: @MaxnaCarta: Just passing by after noticing the RSN discussion and the AfD. There is an AfD about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Liberation Now! started by Red-tailed hawk. If you could discuss whether the article is notable at that venue it would be great! VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Request on 22:41:26, 6 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Purpleicecream27!


Hi, hoping you can help shed light on why our submission got denied. DCP has had significant coverage in outlets such as Indiewire, Rolling Stone, Variety and even the Washington Post. Not sure I understand what other kind of coverage is required to get accepted. Can you please let me know?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purpleicecream27!#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Decentralized_Pictures_Foundation_%28September_12%29

Purpleicecream27! (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Purpleicecream27!I left all the reasons for its decline on the page. You have seven edits all focused on creating one article. Your declared conflict of interest is appreciated, but the COI is likely affecting your judgement on notability and neutrality. That said, if the company met notability standards and the article was written in a neutral tone and not like an advertisement, I'd have approved the article. It has not been covered significantly. I've provided you the assistance required by pointing you to the correct policies. Feedback was provided in detail on the draft. This article subject is insufficiently notable and if you submit the article again it will almost certainly be rejected. Please be advised my decision is final. Unless you provide evidence of significant coverage according to Wikipedia's interpretation, not your own, I cannot assist you further. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Appreciate the prompt response and the feedback. We spoke to someone on the chat section and they advised to remove the NFT mention because of promotions on wikipedia regarding, they also said that the Washington Post article shows notability from a neutral stand point, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/14/film-crypto-decentralized-coppola/
The organization is founded by Roman Coppola, who has his own Wikipedia page. Is there an opportunity to add DCP under his page based on this?
We will review the submission based on the feedback we received through here and through the chat. Purpleicecream27! (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Purpleicecream27! If you feel there is appropriate content to add then you can, but unless it is appropriate and neutral, others may revert. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MULR.png

Thanks for uploading File:MULR.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Actioned MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melbourne Law School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hearn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Will Ashcroft

The page Will Ashcroft has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaxnaCarta,
When you draftify a page, please tag the orginal main space page CSD R2. This is done easily if you use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion or use one of the Draftify scripts, like User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. Also, why did you move this page to Wikipedia/Project space? You should know that this is not the right namespace for articles or drafts. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz I’m lost. It was created in main by mistake, only one sentence. I quickly moved it to draft, finished the draft, and then moved it to main. I understand it’s not complete, but it’s as full as I can make it at present and appropriate quality for main now. Please can I move it back to main? I’m not sure what’s happened here. Whatever error was created by moving it to draft then main again was fixed and the page was working fine? I didn’t use the draft script (if you check my log I consistently use the draft script per your last feedback on drafting) because I didn’t want it to post notes to my talk page. I created the article so there was no need to notify myself etc etc. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz LOL. I moved the draft to “Wikipedia” which is project space, instead of “article”. Wow. I can’t explain how I had that brain fart. Thanks for pointing it out. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, well, I bet that mistake doesn't happen twice! Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz no, it will not. A sign to pay more attention. Cheers Liz. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Balloon (1982 film)

Hi. Are you done with reviewing Balloon (1982 film)? Two days for patrolling a new article is a bit long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Kudpung. I do not see the significant coverage required or any criteria per NFILM. I have asked the creator to provide sources but had no response. I feel this article is suitable for XFD. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't criticising your patrolling. I was just surprised that you were taking so long to decide. I'm rather old fashioned and I do a thorough job of my reviews so I'm a bit slower than most but it still doesn't take me more than a minute or three ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Kudpung I did not think you were criticising at all! ☀. Feedback or questions always welcome here. I am also quite slow with some of them - and tag with the reviewing thing because I was a little tired of doing work looking for the sources and verifying to them come back and find someone has reviewed the page I just spent time reviewing! I left that tag there so that another editor would not come and mark as reviewed when I do not think notability is met. Thoughts? Would you second a PROD? MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
It does indeed look a bit dubious but I don't patrol articles from that part of the world. I leave it to reviewers who can read the sources and judge if they are reliable ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta: @Kudpung: I have started an AfD, please comment whether it is notable and if you could find any sources. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Quadrant House

Hi! I’ve seen that you’ve recently moved the page Quadrant House to the draft space. As I have already (correctly) pointed out to another user, the page should not be moved there as it satisfies all the requirements of notability and sources. Indeed, it is enough for national heritage listed buildings like those one to show that they are listed (which is proven with the Sahra link at the bottom). This is enough for the article to be in the main space. In addition to that, I’ve even added an independent, reliable source, further reinforcing the reliability of the article. This is the convention for articles about national registered monuments. I’d be glad if you moved the page back to the main space. Thank you! 37.117.137.30 (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plumbago Capensis Hi there. OK - so I have reviewed the notability guideline set out at WP:BUILDING and after doing so, I agree this building is sufficiently notable as to warrant an article and so it has been moved to mainspace.
Please note that draftify is a soft option where notability is borderline. It leaves the article in tact, and just gives the creator more time to add sources. It is very important you understand that guidelines are just that, we have no firm rules. This means that just because a guideline states notability is presumed, this does not guarantee an article on the topic is ready for main space. You had only one reference in the article, and you also did not appear to have the heritage status of this building mentioned in the article. It was only included in a list of heritage buildings. Regardless of notability, reliable sources are required to verify claims.
Also, tens of thousands of homes in Melbourne, where I live, are granted a degree of heritage protection, and I am not convinced they all belong on the project. So, I took some time to assess this building and found coverage in several books. A quick scan on the library databases shows mentions elsewhere, so I am convinced the heritage status exists and there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. A lovely building indeed, and congratulations on getting an article to main. In future, regardless of the notability guideline, it will be far less likely for an article to be draftified if there are multiple reliable sources in the references section.
In most circumstances, coverage in multiple reliable sources means a subject can have an article. Have a lovely day. I've been to South Africa and it is a lovely country. Warmest, MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your time and help. And thank you for the advice! I've never been to South Africa (I live in Europe myself), but I really like the country. However, I cannot help but notice how little South African historical buildings and sites are covered and represented on Wikipedia. Having found some lists of heritage sites, it is my plan now to at least create some of the articles, and your advice will be definitely helpful in that. See you!--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

reviewed?

what does it mean that you've reviewed my user page? 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@2006toyotacorrola it’s just a technical issue. For some reason your UP was showing up in the new page patrol feed. Doesn’t usually happen. You may disregard. 😊 MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
ok 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you not receive an invite?

If not, here it is: Invitation to join NPP Discord. Atsme 💬 📧 13:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme I feel embarrassed to admit I do not know what Discord is 😂 but thank you 😊. I’ll try to see how it works and join. I’ve been patrolling so much lately! I’m participating in the backlog. I skip over a lot of reviews but films have become my favourite to review as I practice because they’re usually easy to put in the yes/no category. Missing our chats at NPP school 😊 MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Julia Carrie Wong draft/mainspace

Hi there; you left a template message on my talk page regarding Julia Carrie Wong, a journalist. You then also recommended that I run it through the AfC process, which I'm actually discouraged from doing, as I'm not a novice user! I left reasoning in a reply on my talk page about why I feel the article meets notability guidelines, and how it could be improved in the mainspace instead of in the draft space, where I don't know if I alone can improve it any further. I'm going to pull a WP:BEBOLD on this one and move it out of the draft space and back to the mainspace, because like I said in my reply, it's an article with many secondary reliable sources on a notable figure. I don't, however, want to trigger an edit war, so I'd love to build consensus about the article (or even recruit your help!) in making it better. Cheers! ɯɐɔ 💬 00:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thisisnotcam if you pull that article out of draft space without providing three of your best sources demonstrating notability, I will nominate it for deletion. Draftifying is an appropriate measure per the NPP flowchart where notability is borderline. It’s possible this person is notable but unless you demonstrate significant coverage that substantiates a claim of notability per WP:BASIC and the general notability guideline - it’s not appropriate for inclusion and will be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia has no firm rules and any article without notability can be draftified within 90 days of publishing. I strongly recommend you do not move that back to main. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Thisisnotcamwhere are the sources? 12 of your 19 references are primary sources being articles written by the subject. Being published in the Guardian is not on its face a claim to notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
[6]https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/online-harassment-female-journalists/2021/03/13/ed24b0aa-82aa-11eb-ac37-4383f7709abe_story.html
[7]https://www.cjr.org/analysis/two-facebook-leaks.php
[8]https://diversityhire.substack.com/p/episode-46-fuck-zuck-with-julia-carrie
And happy to add these two to the lineup as well:
[9]https://nypost.com/2022/07/04/guardians-julia-carrie-wong-slammed-for-likening-transphobia-to-fascism/
[10]https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/the-guardians-julia-carrie-wong-understanding/id1539153617?i=1000528853861&l=fr ɯɐɔ 💬 01:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks! However, this podcast has no editorial policies and doesn't appear to meet WP:RS, whereas per WP:RSP The New York Post is generally unreliable for news pieces. These fail WP:GNG and WP:NBIO's RS requirements. This podcast in interview format and is potentially a primary source, which might not meet the "secondary" requirement. VickKiang (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @VickKiang I agree. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang Establishing secondary sources for web-only journalists is difficult — particularly because journalists are the ones writing the sources we often pull from, and we usually don't write about ourselves or others. The "interview format" podcast is actually produced by Harvard Business Review, and has established editorial guidelines. The other podcast is facilitated by reporters, and while I agree that it has no posted editorial policies, when looking at standards for news sources, in my view (which clearly seems to differ from yours, which is fine), a podcast with a specific focus on race and the experiences of journalists of color, hosted by reputable reporters employed by other outlets, with a discussion of her specific experience as a journalist of color in the newsroom, seems not just notable to include with regard to references and her work, but also cements biographical facts about her and the impact of her work. Can I find more secondary sources? Probably! Will they meet the standards you have for sources, which is a strict interpretation of WP guidelines? Maybe not! But that's just speculation. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has no firm rules," and yet you feel the need to nominate the article for deletion if I don't pony up three sources that you must not have looked through yourself? I'm confused why you feel so strongly about this specific draft and are not open to it being edited and improved upon by other editors in the mainspace, where it certainly passes muster compared to other drafts and even other BLPs. This just feels very WP:SPIDEY to me. I'll dig up three of the sources where I feel like she establishes notability, but certainly not because if I don't, you'll get into some dispute about this in a different way. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I passed by this draft as well and IMHO it's at best borderline notable, because she works in The Guardian, pieces in The Guardian publishing about her IMHO is non-independent. Except for 1, 2, the rest are mostly stuff the journalist wrote herself IMHO (WP:REFBOMB, a collection of refs that fail to demonstrate notability or improve the article), blogs, or podcasts that are possibly primary interviews, but let's agree to disagree here. Further, while your point of view is definitely reasonable, it seems close to WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS IMO. I'm confused why you feel so strongly about this specific draft and are not open to it being edited and improved upon by other editors in the mainspace, where it certainly passes muster compared to other drafts and even other BLPs. This just feels very WP:SPIDEY to me- IMHO WP:BURDEN is still an important policy that is applicable here. Many thanks, also pinging WaddlesJP13. VickKiang (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Thisisnotcam This is not a content dispute. I do not get involved in content disputes. Your article is one of the dozens I have draftified merely because it does not contain reliable secondary sources showing significant coverage. What I am saying is that there is no firm rule that means merely because you are an experienced editor, you are exempt from practices including the draftification of a recently created article. Also, those sources are not appropriate. The first is not significant coverage of the subject. Second also. Third is not a reliable source. Fourth is getting there. Fifth is a podcast - generally not reliable. @VickKiang reflects how I feel. I also please request that you remain friendly with me. All I have done is draftify an article. You and I have never interacted before. I objectively and dispassionately executed the functions of a new page reviewer without any thought as to the merit of the article subject or its creator, I simply disagree with their notability at this moment and so moved it to draft space where you could add sources, and then submit for review by a second editor. You have absolutely no evidence for the claim that I will "get into dispute" about this another way. I do not get involved in stubborn arguments - and if you feel that way I am happy to withdraw from the discussion entirely and leave another reviewer to make a decision. Please assume good faith. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang @MaxnaCartaThis is getting to be excessive. The original conversation on my talk page, which was really more of a response to a script template, established my reasoning for including her work: Obviously some of her work is cited as examples to back up her reporting that I mentioned, but there are numerous secondary sources that establish notability and credibility for her work. 10 out of the 19 sources are secondary and include her as a subject, with the rest used to establish her body of work.with the rest used to establish her body of work. I don't like content disputes, and I also don't like being faced with blanket remarks about a draft with no clear indication of what to change.
I can appreciate that you draftified it just like many other articles at a time, and as a recent changes patroller, I can empathize with that. But this was a redlinked, requested article to be written by a WikiProject (that does, admittedly, contain many novice users) and pushing this into the mainspace is a priority for me — and the slapping of an AfC on this just feels like it'll be tossed into a void with an unclear barrier to overcome for it to hit "notability," only for it to get rejected by another passing editor and tossed into a void for another four months. I say this and I also recognize that it isn't your problem, nor did you cause the issue. I'm sorry for coming off as unkind (I hate how the internet warps tone), and I hope that you can understand why I feel strongly about getting this out, and how frustrating it can be to receive a message with subjective and unclear guidance. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, but I'm confused how does a creation recommendation in a WikiProject indicate notability? Also, the AfC is an automatic procedure using the move to draft script as per User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, unfortunately, the script doesn't customise based on each editor's "experience". Further, how frustrating it can be to receive a message with subjective and unclear guidance- if you intend to move this back to mainspace I'll consider starting an AfD discussion. However, I've also pinged WaddlesJP13, a prolific NPP who might provide an alternative perspective. Like I said, I had challenged the refs you provided and your (IMHO, of course) potentially misleading statement on secondary refs. and pushing this into the mainspace is a priority for me — and the slapping of an AfC on this just feels like it'll be tossed into a void with an unclear barrier to overcome for it to hit "notability," only for it to get rejected by another passing editor and tossed into a void for another four months- if AfC reviewers also concur that this is non-notable, I'm finding it a bit confusing to understand why this would need an article based on WikiProject recommendations. I don't like content disputes, and I also don't like being faced with blanket remarks about a draft with no clear indication of what to change- I did provide my point-of-view on the refs, however, you continue to state that the refs are RS that are SIGCOV, which is fine, but I do not view my feedback as vague. Many thanks, to avoid this potential notability (not content) dispute I will abstain until another reviewer comments also. Thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how much insight I can give on this person's notability, but it looks to me that if this article has disputed notability then it should just be submitted for review through the AFC process. That way, someone more experienced at BLP reviews than me and someone with less of a COI towards the article itself than you guys can thoroughly review it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@WaddlesJP13 — I appreciate this. I think my reasoning for not going through the AfC process was because of this line on the AfC page:
Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the AfC queue with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers. If you are not required to use the AfC process but still need time to work on a new article before it's ready for mainspace, please do not submit it for review.
I truly thought this was a non-controversial article, with non-controversial references, and it was reviewed after I published it. Everything seemed pretty smooth, and then with no discussion it was reverted to a draft. I'm probably going to take some time away before coming back to this, or just pass it off entirely to a different editor working on this project, because it seems like despite my best efforts and intentions, this isn't going to go anywhere if I'm involved. Thank you for your note, I'll pass your suggestion on to the other members of our project. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang, I feel like you've very thoroughly made your point. I've explained not just why I felt like the sources were notable, but also why I was initially frustrated at the process. This was initally a conversation between User:MaxnaCarta and myself. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
So if I'm interpreting correctly just because it was initially a discussion between you and Max I shouldn't be involved in it? I've already stated that I'll abstain from now onwards, apologies if my comment was unclear/vague. I'd be curious- where is the policy/guideline/rule that states after one editor expressed a view I couldn't comment or participate? If I'm missing something, do point me out, but I'd be interested which of my previous comments are controversial or offensive. Further, if one editor marked it as patrolled, which policy/guideline/essay states that I couldn't another express different views (AfD, draftify, etc...)? I strongly disagree with the notability of the draft, per your views I will try to avoid discussions with you on this topic in the future if you view that I am WP:BLUDGEONing the conversation and participating in WP:POINT based on three comments, despite that you initiating the discussion and commented far more times. Many thanks for your work and efforts in recent changes patrol, apologies that we're both getting a bit confrontational, I've changed/clarified my comments a bit! VickKiang (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The editor does not seem happy with me either, and accused me of SPIDEY conduct which is and I quote "climb[ing] the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man to promote [my] cause...[behaviour which] is strongly discouraged and will result in a complete and utter block from editing Wikipedia".
All because I draftified, as told the draftify would be undone unilaterally, and then said I would nominate it for deletion because of a lack of sourcing?
Yeah OK.
@Thisisnotcam, you don't seem to wanna deal with me, you don't wanna deal with Vick, so why don't you just submit your article back to AFC and let another editor handle it? I will not review it (Though I reserve my right to nominate it for deletion or participate in any deletion discussions raised by others) and I will avoid reviewing your articles in future to prevent further tension. I hope this assists. So sorry our first interaction could not have been more pleasant.
Have a nice day. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta For reference, I'm likely stepping away from this entirely, after I add an additional source. When it goes back up through AfC, it most likely won't be me doing it. This isn't fun anymore. I agree with you that it's unfortunate our first interaction wasn't more pleasant; hopefully the next time we cross paths it'll be less tense. Cheers; thank you for your work. ɯɐɔ 💬 02:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've just reversed the move as the request at the RMT appeared reasonable to me. Please feel free to take the article to AfD to gain a better community consensus. Best, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dietrich v The Queen

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dietrich v The Queen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn thank you so much! I’m happy to review an article of yours or an editor you know who’s got one in the backlog if you would like. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Don't thank me yet, I'm not finished. :) But facetiousness aside, it's kind of you to offer, but at this point I've got nothing in the queue. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Goldsztajn Oh, I meant I am thankful for you starting the review. I’m ya my first GA nomination and there may be heaps of work for me to do to get it over the line. Im up for the challenge! Just so excited to have a reviewer because it’s only been nominated for a month or so, and some sit for a long time. I have some journal articles to use and replace the case with as a source if you need me to. And also if you want some of the journals I’ve cited for source verification I can email put them on my google drive and email you a link. Because this case is older I had to literally go to the basement of a library and find the original paper journal articles for this case. MaxnaCarta (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi - in terms of sourcing, I've got good access to virtual and physical libraries, so I think I'll be good. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Andre Soelistyo page draft

Hi @MaxnaCarta Thanks a ton for your time to review my work. I am looking to improve on my editing skills & need some direction from you for the page draft which you declined for the main space.

The page I was referring to for building Andre's page was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Syngal (since both are a bit low profile CEOs of listed firms, so was a more comparable page than with a celebrity CEO like Jeff Bezos). In the page I referred (i.e. above link) I don't see too many references or dedicated articles on the subject. Moreover, I thought the page I am building was balanced with negative points around IPO, loss etc and the main story about the entrepreneur, compared to Sonia's page which has no negative points.

(a) I can see dedicated articles on Andre such as the below on Andre: https://www.thejakartapost.com/ms/gojek-2019/2021/12/05/andre-soelistyo-becomes-the-only-indonesian-to-grace-2021-bloomberg-50.html If the above link is not the right direction, can you please give some examples for another page/person - that can help me understand better?

(b) Also, please do let me know any points which look like advertisement OR what else I can do to make the page more balanced.

I am following tech industry (& people in there) in APAC and building pages around it. Just want to learn and contribute. Vishwasthakkar (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vishwasthakkar hi there. Not sure what work I reviewed? Someone else reviewed this article. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @MaxnaCarta
Please see the link for your comment on 10th Oct'22. I clicked on your signature and came to your page. Pretty sure you reviewed and left a comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vishwasthakkar


Also, the draft article page mentions that you declined the article with your name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andre_Soelistyo

Vishwasthakkar (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCartaSince you claim that you have NOT declined the page draft. I will 'undo' the same & resubmit it.
A response would be highly appreciated, so I know the next steps. Thanks Vishwasthakkar (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Vishwasthakkar Do not shout at me. I was looking at Sonia Syngal. You are trying to get one or two articles approved. I and a small number of volunteers patrol thousands of new articles a month during our spare time. You need to be patient and wait - “undoing” a rejection or decline is not permitted. First, it is not even necessary. If you want to bypass my decision, you can just press the resubmit button, there is no need to undo my decline. Only a rejection takes that button away. Thanks for linking me to your talk page. I notice that another editor had the same article speedily deleted a month ago. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The person is not sufficiently notable. The coverage you raise is not sufficiently in-depth. Routine coverage of an executive is insufficient for a standalone Wikipedia article. Please do not attempt to keep resubmitting this article, its been previously deleted by an administrator and so I will not approve it. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@MaxnaCarta Thanks for the reply.
Wasn't shouting, meant to stress on the word. Apologies for that. You guys are truly doing a great job & I want to be a part of the small team that can help on wiki, hence trying to learn the ropes here.
> The article was 'undeleted' by another admin - as it wasn't that bad. I edited the article as per the input given. However, if you can help share a ref article based on which I can keep working on this one - will be very helpful. On my end will try to find a better angle (if applicable); else will delete the draft myself.
I am just trying to learn, excuse me once again for the chase earlier. I am also working in my free time on wiki as truly believe in the free knowledge shared here & I have personally benefitted a lot from it. Look forward to learning from you on writing better articles.
Vishwasthakkar (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Admins can undelete on request and that is fine. However one person nominated it for deletion, an administrator deleted it, another editor moved it to drafted and I (without even knowing this history), declined it. I think if four seperate editors have made a judgement the article does not belong, that should indicate resubmitting has a low chance of success. I’m not sure what there is to learn - the article is well written, it is just not on a notable topic. No amount of writing can fix a lack of notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
ok noted. Thanks a ton
Vishwasthakkar (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

WWE action figures

Hello, MaxnaCarta,

I had to revert your AFD closure. There were several editors who voted "Delete" so it can't be a SNOW close even if the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. A nomination withdrawal doesn't stop the clock unless there are no editors who are in favor of deletion.

Before you close any more deletion discussions, please review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure thoroughly. Non-admins should never close any "close call" AFDs or AFDs that might be considered controversial or be challenged. Until you gain more experience, I wouldn't close any discussions unless there is a unanimous decision to Keep, Merge or Redirect an article. If you have questions, please come to my talk page and we can talk more about this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz You're right, that was my misapplication of the deletion policy and NAC. Thanks for pointing that out. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello MaxnaCarta,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Draft:Bokksu

Hello MaxnaCarta, you commented on my draft about bokksu. I changed the references and added a few things about the company, I hope that you like the new refs as I tried to avoid interviews. I just resubmitted the draft. Thank you for the comments. OnlineWilly (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @OnlineWilly, after reviewing the article and your best attempt at sourcing this product/company is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The article is rejected. I’m sorry, this is not able to be fixed as meeting our corporate notability guideline is a must for inclusion. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP second opinion

Hey Maxna. Hope you're doing OK. I was wondering if you could give me a second opinion on a page I've just NPP reviewed, as it's related to three articles you DRAFTIFYed earlier. The article is 20th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party.

When reviewing it I followed the NPP flowchart through to the GNG check. While the article is unsourced, it does contain a credible claim of significance, it's obviously not a BLP, but a Google search did turn up reliable sources on it which I've listed on the article's and the article creator's talk page. As such I tagged the article as unreferenced, and followed the remainder of the left side of the flow chart which eventually said to review the article.

However, when writing the message on the author's talk page, I saw that you had draftified three other stubs by the same author. So I can't help but wonder if DRAFTIFY is a better option here? Should I undo the review and send it to the draft space instead do you think? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh, and to complicate matters further, there is a pre-existing draft with the same name, also unsourced, by a different author, but with more content. Hmmm, think I might need to take a third option here. Copy content from the pre-existing draft, attribute the author at the other page, and then cite it with the citations I've already found! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Took the fourth option! Convinced an admin to WP:HISTMERGE the two versions of the article (draft and mainspace), and then added a background section using sources that currently exist. Alas the new Politburo members won't be confirmed for another few hours (midday on 23 October 2022 Beijing time), but at least now it should be compliant with GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Is it all sorted now @Sideswipe9th? I drafted them because the author legit had placed templates saying they were not finished yet. Plus some were unsourced, had blank sections, etc. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah the Politburo one is sorted now! It'll need updating again in another few hours, once the final list of members gets published, but otherwise all is good. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Early end of the backlog drive

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Draftification

Hello, MaxnaCarta,

Just a tip, when you are considering moving an article from main space to Draft space, please check out the experience level of the page creator. If they have been editing Wikipedia for years and have thousands of edits, it is likely they are creating an article in main space rather than draft space and it just isn't finished yet. Moving an early stage article created by an experienced editor to Draft space is likely just to caues animosity towards you. Some editors just prefer to work in main space rather than working out the kinks in Draft space like new editors are advised to do.

While in one sense, all editors are equal here, we have to acknowledge that editors with thousands of edits and years of experience creating articles generally know what they are doing. Their page creations might not look perfect at the moment you are checking them out but try to look at the big picture when deciding what to do. It's perfectly okay for you to do nothing at all or actually taking a moment to help out by improving the article. Just a head's up. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz noted, thank you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Awards

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given to MaxnaCarta for collecting more than 200 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Rack and pinion Award

This award is given to MaxnaCarta for collecting more than 15 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
This award is given to MaxnaCarta for doing more than 25 re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dietrich v The Queen

The article Dietrich v The Queen you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dietrich v The Queen for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn I’m not sure where you’re located, but I literally squealed “NOOOO” in a very comical way. Obviously an error because I saw your message on the review page. I have learned SO much over the last month! Thank you thank you thank you!
Also a HUGE thanks to @Extraordinary Writ. This article was one of the first I ever worked on and after EW rightfully had it delisted from Featured Article because of its poor condition, I asked them for some feedback on getting it back. They gave me pointers and EW, your GAs and FAs really helped me along the way especially with structure.
thanks to you both! MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi MaxnaCarta! I completely understand your shock, hrelieved it was only short-lived! That's the first time I've ever seen this error, quite strange ... I left a message at the bot's talk page, hopefully it can be resolved. More than happy to have collaborated on this, happy to do it again! Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting

Hello! Your submission of CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting

On 25 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first judgement of 2022 from the High Court of Australia was considered a loss for a labour hire organisation, but a win for labour hire organisations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vivianne Ruiz.webp

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vivianne Ruiz.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, MaxnaCarta

Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice!
As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to
recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia.
May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity.
Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too!! MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello MaxnaCarta,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Carey)
  2. ^ https://familyhistory.bdm.nsw.gov.au/lifelink/familyhistory/search/result?4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxnaCarta/Archive_1&oldid=1138288431"