User talk:NagalimNE

Article moved to draftspace

Think I can understand why it was unsuitable, mistake/slip in a bid to 'flourish' thanks for pointing that out, made appropriate edits + beefed up referencing. Textor Alector (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Textor Alector thank you too. NagalimNE (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to draftspace

Hi User: NagalimNE, I looked into your concern and saw why the article was unsuitable . I have fixed typos and references. There were missed words and some grammar mistakes that i have also worked on. Thanks

thank you

Hello, how are you, thank you for your message in may "talk page". I understand you, also in Arabic wikipedia we have problems about Notability, I write and insert the good reference like books and news in English and of cuorss alot of refence in Arabic "he is Syraian". i will read article once again. best wishis. --omar (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that. NagalimNE (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi NagalimNE. 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm JavaHurricane. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Şakir Bayhan, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Java Hurricane 08:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User: JavaHurricane and User: NagalimNE Thanks a lot for your comments and clues for me to find the right path.

I have created this page in the name of my father, passed away 2 years ago. Due to his very specific works in a niche area, it's not easy to find sources and citations on internet. Actually his age and generation must be an adder for this issue.

He dedicated his life for languages ( Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, Macedonian,Montenegrin, Slovenian, Albanian..even Russian and German.) and dictionaries. Just with one aim for life. To create the first and unique dictionary. i am trying to make his name live forever in the biggest part of wikipedia ( EN WP) he has also a WP in Turkish part. Link is https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Şakir_Bayhan

I revised the article by adding several cites more and added ISBN numbers to the publications.Deleted the publications having no ISBN numbers.

Also, added small details to his life story.

Could you please check and let me know what could i do as a further step.

Thanks again and all the best.

Paladin.

Hi, User:Paladinedreamer! You can submit it for review and a reviewer will then decide. You can also ask for opinion or help from admin User:DGG too before submitting as they earlier said the subject may be notable on the basis of WP:AUTHOR. NagalimNE (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider him notable as an author and as an academic, and accepted the article. This does not prevent anyone else from challenging it, at AFD,; there will then be a community discussion and the consensus will decide. It would help if you added formal book reviews from reliable published sources, ib any language, DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Help

Hi User: NagalimNE, you recently reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MySwimPro ". It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources" Can you please help me understand which sections of the article need more citations or which citations are not good enough? I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strava as an example when creating this article and am having trouble understanding why my sources do not work. My understanding of Wikipedia's general notability guideline is that these work.

Thank you in advance for all of your help! Taylorholmes (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Taylorholmes I am sorry but this company is not notable as said by admin. Better to focus on other subjects. Also, If you have any relation to the company please disclose that too. NagalimNE (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree-the company is not notable. If you are a paid editor, be careful to always declare it, and be very selective about what jobs you accept. make sure you have fully adequate references before you start writing. We tend to make the assumption that paid editing is likely to be promotional and borderline notable at best, and we very much dislike devoting our volunteer efforts to fixing what someone else is being paid for.. Be ver y careful, thorough, and selective. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User: NagalimNE, thank you for the feedback! Still getting a feel with citations, and greatly appreciate the help. After doing some research on wikipedia I can see how some of the articles I sourced are not as credible/notable as I thought. I will work on improving! Taylorholmes (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello NagalimNE,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? 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 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:53:27, 9 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jpmilstein

Jpmilstein (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Thomas Ajamie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the note included when this article submission was declined was "Please cite 3 indepth sources which directly talks about the subject and are independent." -- but I believe more than 3 of the references already fit this description. The clearest examples are references 15, 16, and 17 -- The Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, and New York Magazine -- these articles are why I decided to write create this page in the first place. I saw that Thomas Ajamie was a major part of the Harvey Weinstein story and had significant coverage but no Wikipedia page.

Rather than only writing about his connection to the Weinstein story, I looked at Wikipedia pages of other high profile lawyers as a guide for what kinds of details should be included. Some of the sources are not as prominent as the three mentioned above, but the only time I relied on Ajamie's law firm's website was for personal details that I thought were allowed to come from a subject's own website as long as notability had been established via other independent sources first.

This is my first article though, so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding something. Thanks!

Jpmilstein (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. Also, I checked sources I see Tom Ajamie name instead of Thomas Ajamie. Can you please clear this confusion and cite best 3 indepth sources here so I can review? Thank You. NagalimNE (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are the three I was mentioning

The Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/how-harvey-weinsteins-charity-fraud-led-his-downfall-1286557/

Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/harvey-weinstein-nightmare-finding-neverland-amfar-money

New York Magazine: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/david-boies-harvey-weinstein-lawyer.html

Jpmilstein (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the name discrepancy, I used the full name that was listed on his firm's website, but is it better to use Tom rather than Thomas because that's how it is in the major citations? I just had assumed it was based on whatever the full name of the person was, but again, this is my first article, so I'll defer to you on that. thanks! Jpmilstein (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the string of replies, just trying to be thorough. I had one more thought on the name vs nickname question -- this New York Times article which is from many years earlier (and not related to the Weinstein scandal) has his name as Thomas rather than Tom: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/business/former-broker-gets-big-fine-from-exchange.html -- but after further reflection and after looking at some other Wikipedia pages, my gut tells me the article should be titled Tom Ajamie and the opening sentence should start with "Thomas Ajamie..." -- does that make sense? And if so, is that something I should change or should I wait? Thanks again! Jpmilstein (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I asked about the name discrepancy question at the AfC help desk, and someone took a look and decided to change the page name from Thomas to Tom -- and they went ahead and took care of that. Jpmilstein (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw an admin did it. It seems ok now. NagalimNE (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with references

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing the article [N. Weiss|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_N._Weiss]. You noted that there is no "significant coverage" of Mr. Weiss in independent media. One article that is cited is from the Los Angeles Times that names Mr. Weiss in the headline: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-07-06-ca-1139-story.html. Does this not qualify as sufficient level of coverage in a reliable secondary source?

Thanks very much for any guidance you can provide.

AlexanderKopelman (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read LaTimes source because its behind paywall. Also one source is not enough. We need atleast 2 indpeth sources. NagalimNE (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Here is a link to the LA Times story on the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20210505140219/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-07-06-ca-1139-story.html

And here are a couple of stories from The NY Times: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1980/01/27/112882360.html?pageNumber=133; https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/biztech/articles/05digi.html

And one from Wired Magazine: https://www.wired.com/1998/08/web-labs-weiss-on-vision/

Do these meet the independent source citation criteria?

Thanks.

--AlexanderKopelman (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gal Yosef

Hello, you declined my draft but I think there is a mistake and this is not the first time it happenes in general (not you personally) so please give me a moment and I will explain: you said most looks like PR but there is a mistake since they are not. when there is a PR article, the law says to declare its paid on the one hand, on the other hand please see the sites (vogue, buzzfeed, i24news, autodesk, forbes, artnet, fashionweekdaily, marieclaire, museum-week and vegasmagazine) again and see they are not PR and the ones who do except paid advertising clearly declare it. those are all real articles. Also, Gal is very known and just lately even Justin biber wrote about him and what they did together. can you please revisit this or tell me what to do? it just seems not fair nor is it right... ברטוביניו (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: MARINET

Hi, we have received your notice about our article - read more like an advertisement and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources - but, as you may see, the auther of the article is represented by only one link in referenses and others are independed resourses, including massmedia and organizations. Actually, there is no advertisement in the article, it is totally neutral. May i ask you to outline sentenses or words, which seems as an adverticeing for you. Thanks! Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Uptoniter per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uptoniter. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]