User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 3

Thanks for your contributions to Anshika Kaithwas. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because both articles included are red links and were apparently also moved to draftspace. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I do apologize for the automated message above, but it was because I used the "draftify" script to move the dab to drafspace. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris: None needed, appreciate the extra eyes on cleanup! Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Dinman01 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kent W. Colton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received notification of my article Kent W. Colton being declined because submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Are you able to provide a little more detail so that I can revise before editing and submitting again? Dinman01 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dinman01: All of your external links in the text are inappropriate. Review WP:External links for more information, in particular, External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Marcus, I am reaching out because I am a newcomer to editing on wikipedia, and I recently posted a draft of a page that was turned down by you. I have worked hard to correct the problems that you identified, but it says on my sandbox page that I should reach out to you first before resubmitting. The page in question is about the dutch academic, author and methane reduction activist, Roland Kupers. Can you please let me know what my next step should be? thank you so much for your help, best, Anne (with the wiki name of acknowledgeshame) AcknowledgeShame (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AcknowledgeShame, I am unable to find your submission, it looks like it has since been deleted. You should contact the deleting administrator or seek review at WP:DELREV. Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am resubmitting. I followed you guidelines/recommendations. Advise or change accordingly. Thanks. Greg Cesear (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Greg Cesear I removed one problematic sentence I found before publishing, but otherwise good job on the article. You can see the removal on Special:Diff/1211987007. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that sentence would be going but wasn't sure if you wanted a little more specificity. I like the additional sentence under productions, as well. Greg Cesear (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marcus, Thanks for reviewing the submission on Anne Hallward. Your comment was that some of the sources are not reliable. I checked them, but can you help me by pointing out the specific problem that you see? Many thanks, Plainwriter (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Plainwriter, the awards section is uncited but uses WP:External links. These would need proper inline citations. Best, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marcus - ah, indeed - the links are all specific to Hallward, but indeed should be citations - will fix and resubmit! Plainwriter (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello MicrobiologyMarcus,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Safe Space Radio for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Safe Space Radio to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

Geardona (talk to me?) 23:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Marcus for your recent comments regarding the pastor Mike Signorelli submission. I've corrected some issues in the latest draft, but it continues to be a "work in progress". I've followed pastor Mike for a year via his youtube channel & am attending his Georgia conference later this month. Will resubmit the article sometime in April if all goes well. Thanks Eldon Eldonbearden (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Eldonbearden; unfortunately, the draft in its current state is not acceptable and ready for publication to the main space. Presently, there are two major hurdles the draft needs to overcome: Wikipedia's policy on Notability and Verifiability.

First, the subject of the article (here, Mike Signorelli) must meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability threshold. Review that project page, but in brief, to be notable for Wikipedia, and therefore qualify for an article, the subject must demonstrate it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per our General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG). In certain subject areas, the topic may need to only meet its subject-specific notability guidelines. In this case WP:Notability (people) applies.

Second, because the topic of your article is a biography of a living person (BLP), our WP:Biographies of living persons policy applies. Our BLP policy is a subset of our WP:Verifiability policy, which states that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Specifically, this means you need to use WP:Inline citations to all facts or statements about a living person on the subject.

What does this mean for your draft? It means you will need to add inline citations to your draft that come from secondary sources. Currently, your draft has no inline citations. For help with this, see a tutorial at WP:REFB. By adding inline citations, it will demonstrate that all of your facts are backed up by external sources, and therefor meet WP:Verifiability and will show that Signorelli has been covered by secondary sources and pass the WP:Notability threshold.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi good Morning, Could please tell me where the peacock terms used. And the subject has extensive coverage in chennai city news and times of India about fourth force. Can you help me with this. Sreeram181997 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sreeram181997, the article uses a lot of promotional tone. Consider With over three decades of experience in and he has established himself as as two examples in the lead alone. This language is promotional and does not serve to describe the subject of the article, as should be done by an encyclopedic entry. You should also note that, as a WP:BLP, all personal information needs to have WP:Inline citations. Currently, § Early life and the first two sections of § Career have no citations whatsoever. You should also be aware that Times of India is not generally considered a reliable source, especially for establishing notability. You can find more information at the Perennial Sources project page at WP:TOI. And if it is about the fourth force, it does not generally confer notability to another subject, in this case Jayaprakash. See WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:INDEPTH. Thanks, and if you have any more questions please don't hesitate to ask. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, take a look at the WP:Style guide, section headers should be sentence case and not bold. Instead, use only increasing level headers with = equals characters. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi good Morning Times of India is reputed new media in India. It is generally considered as notability.

and if any section didnt have citation means. Whether we need to remove it or it can be there. Sreeram181997 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sreeram181997, per the section The Times of India (WP:TOI) on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage.

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah understood.. I have added other sources other than TOI. for example chennai city news which extensively cover the topic which i have written. I have made changes which you said with regard to peacock terms. Can you help to further changes which required. Sreeram181997 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ruth Levy Guyer, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there!

I had edited and added some content to this page. In fact I was actually in the middle of adding sources to the information. Give me around an hour, and I will be done with adding the relevant sources.

I am adding the old information that you deleted back to the page. I hope you won't mind. Just bear with me for an hour so.

Thank you. 61.3.173.221 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy to, you might also find that by logging in, you can use a sandbox in your userspace. You might also find WP:REFB helpful. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello MicrobiologyMarcus, I noticed that my article on Payaza Africa Limited was removed. As this is my first attempt at writing here, I'm finding it challenging to grasp the policies and identify where I went wrong. I also received a notification suggesting I contact you before making any revisions to the article. I appreciate your guidance in advance.@MicrobiologyMarcus Sholaasiru (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sholaasiru, regarding your draft that was in your sandbox, I moved it to an appropriate page title in the draft namespace (here: [1]) for various reasons, as a a part of the article creation process after you submitted it for review. During my review, it was my opinion that the draft article was unambiguous advertising or promotion of the subject, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (see WP:NOT) and therefore qualified for speedy deletion under criteria G11 and tagged it as such, hence the notification on your talk page warning you about it, and providing instructions on contesting it. An administrator (Seraphimblade) agreed that it was too promotional and has already deleted it (here: [2]), so you'll have to discuss with them about retrieving it, or you can rewrite it in a more neutral tone and submit that version.

Hope that helps, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marcus, thank you for reviewing my recent Wikipedia page. I've improved it using your comments. Please let me know whether it meets the standard now or whether I have to make further improvements. Kr, Remo Remo Oostdam (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remo Oostdam, the § Education and academic career section is entirely void of references. In addition, I don't believe that your draft article demonstrates that the subject meets WP:Notability because all of the current references appear to be WP:Primary and not WP:Independent. You might find reviewiwng the notability guidelines for academics helpful, at WP:NPROF. I won't decline it again personally, but I do suggest you make these improvements. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Emojis, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Marcus, I hope you’re well.

Thank you for reviewing my post. Unfortunately it got rejected :(

This was my first attempt at writing an article on Wikipedia. Would it be possible for you to give me some feedback on how I can improve my writing? What I did wrong and what I did right? I would really appreciate it!

I did see the draft info you provided, however, I think it would really help if you could give me a little insight as you have a lot of experience.

Kenzi Wang is listed as public figure on Google search so seems like it should be there but maybe I didn’t cite it correctly or used bad citations?

I would really appreciate a bit of insight here so I can improve my wiki page writing skills.

Thank you!! Jamesw98 (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jamesw98, happy to help. Unfortunately, since the time of my review, another edit has deemed that that draft was too promotional and was eligible to be deleted. Our records show that the draft article was deleted by User:Bbb23 (talk) as it met criteria G11 for being too promotional. You'll have to discuss with them about having the article restored. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Marcus, and thank you for your timely edit of play equity ... I've made the edits for sourcing, and await any input. Many thanks. I've made the edits you recommended and await any other guidance or ulitmately, am hopeful this can be published. PrintableSpace (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PrintableSpace, good job on the edits, I've resubmitted the draft on your behalf. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you advise on any update on the review for Wentworth Huyshe, an active member of the Arts & Crafts movement in Chipping Campden in the early 20th century? I don't understand how the sources and references quoted are inaccurate or unverifiable? Huyshe2022 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: Responded on talk page. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of Draft:Adam Zeman (neurologist). I've added some secondary sources to it - I'm not sure how much secondary coverage is required to demonstrate notability. LookLook36 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

HI @LookLook36, generally, our WP:Notability policy specifies that a topic must meet our WP:GNG list. Specifically,

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
  • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Specifically, understand that significant coverage shows that the subject is the main focus or a main focus of the cited material. See WP:SIGCOV.

Alternatively, if it can be shown the subject of the article meets some of our subject-specific notability guidelines, then notability may be presumed if the subject meets the requirements of the subject's project. For WP:NPROF, the list there says:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

You might also consider trying to demonstrate WP:NAUTHOR. You should look to meet these notability requirements by citing to sources that are WP:Reliable, and WP:Independent of the subject. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's very helpful. I believe I have demonstrated that he meets WP:NPROF on grounds 1 and 7 - I've resubmitted the article. LookLook36 (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

I see that you have been working through the Mediterranean Sea View 2017 page that was recently uploaded. I saw that the page received a "C" on the talk page score. Do you have advice on how to fix that and raise score? I want to make sure that the article is meeting Wikipedia standards. FanofColorado (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FanofColorado, there's nothing inherently wrong with an article that receives a C-rating, see WP:ASSESS. Coming out of AfC and past the WP:NPP team says that the subjects meets our core principles on WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, which is not a guarantee, especially for new editors. Good job on your first article! But if you're curious, the requirements for an article to be assess a B-rating is:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

If you would like, you can request a more formal feedback and assessment at WP:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment § Requesting an assessment. Or you can ask the folks over at WP:WikiProject Visual arts what their recommendation would be.

To go higher than a B-class article, you would need to submit it as a Good article at WP:GAN, a lengthier process on the project. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask!

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and edits with the first article! I will keep fine-combing that up. FanofColorado (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Marcus,

I have mentioned reliable and enough citations for the information provided on the page,could i please know where did it go wrong or what needs to be corrected, SK Ray IITKGP (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SK Ray IITKGP, first I would remind you of the WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY notice I left on your talk page and a reminder of our WP:COI policies in the event that the draft is accepted. The draft article currently has multiple WP:external links in the text that either need to be turned into references using <ref> tags or removed. In addition, the draft currently cites to a lot of WP:Primary sources, that in turn, create concerns about failing to meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. At present, the most cited reference on the page is a wixsite.com website for the lab group; not exactly WP:Secondary or WP:Reliable. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Further, a closer examination of your sources would have shown that the links provided are generic homepage urls which are not specific to the subject of the article, search query URLs that are non-specific, and profiles that do not return any information as it pertains to the subject of the article. Frankly, if you are only here to promote someone or something without an understanding of the policies and practices of the project, Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Take the advice of Wikipedia:Autobiography. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Marcus,

Thankyou verymuch for mentioning in detail on things that needs to meet wiki-policies,we will surely get back with proper changes required for artcile to get published.

However,you have specified that some URLs are non-specific and do not return any info,but please do look closely into it,which proves the info provided ,for example "He is the recipient of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA) Young Scientist Award of year 1993", to this i have given the Website URL and the other URL which directs you to Award recipient page in which there is list of names to whom it was awarded(in our case it was of year 1993 with name Ray Samit Kumar) ,and the also same process has been applied to other information provided.Frankly, we are not here to promote anyone , this was just an attempt to have a page on our professor who is really well established and renowned for his contributions to semiconductor physics. SK Ray IITKGP (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus,

First, thank you for all of the good work you are doing here on the project. You are a very productive patroller and it's appreciated!

Second, I watch the Move log and have noticed what seems to be some odd page moves. You sometimes move an article out of User space to Draft space and then either a) tag it for speedy deletion or b) move it straight away to main space. You don't need to move a page out of User space to Draft space before doing either of these steps. You can both tag it for deletion while it is still in User space or move it directly from User space to main space. Neither deletion tagging or a move to main space require a detour to Draft space. Also, I haven't seen you do this but please don't move an article out of User space to main space so that the article can then be tagged with an "A" speedy deletion criteria. Again, I haven't noticed you doing this but there do seem to be some unnecessary page moves going on and so I want to mention that this is not a wise move.

I think any unnecessary page moves will be confusing to the content creator because the deletion tagging and the multiple moves happen just seconds after the first page move to Draft space so they are probably unaware of what is going unless they happen to be editing at the time this is occurring which is unlikely. I hope I have gotten across my point, ask me if you have any questions about it. Many thanks, again, for all of your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Liz, appreciate the feedback. Happy to walk you through my thinking on the maintenance moves I do.

I move drafts submitted while in the user space because I'm following the Reviewing instructions § Submissions in other namespace and the advice in the tracking category at Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace. My understanding of this protocol is two fold: once submitted, it's best in case the draft isn't reviewed right away that other editors may want to improve on it (like is possible with the notification with the {{r with possibilities}} redirect template). The other is (and again this is my understanding) that drafts that are spammy or promotional and therefore later deleted, will be tracked in the deletion log under that page name. That's the advice I've seen previously proffered. So that's why I might move it and then, when a closer inspection finds that it may qualify for speedy deletion, tag it for speedy deletion. I often only do this for articles masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. I like to think that most moves+reviews I do are declinations (or leave them) and not rejections or CSD candidates. Drafts that are obviously spam and don't pass that first sniff test, I'll tag with the {{Db-multiple}} U5 and G11 prior to a move; I know some editors will do this before a move, but like I said, my understanding was that leaving a record in the deletion log was preferential.

With regards to moving to draft space and then right to mainspace, I try not to do this. I know I've done this recently twice off the top of my head. In these instances, what usually happens is I think I'm not be ready accept and they're best to incubate for someone else to review in the draft space, but then I end up coming around on them. To this end, I understand your point that less moves in the move log would be preferential, and in the future I'll try to slow down in these instances and catch (and approve) them sooner without the layover in the draft space.

Don't think I've done any moves of drafts (or sandboxes) to mainspace for the sole reason that they would qualify for an "A" CSD criteria.

I always appreciate the feedback. Hopefully my logic makes sense and you can see what I'm doing, but if my understanding of the above procedure or logical reasoning thereof is wrong, please let me know. I'm always happy to take more feedback about reviewing and some of the maintenance work I do. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 01:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello MicrobiologyMarcus, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Central Ohio Film Critics Association Awards for Best Animated Feature, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ivanvector I appreciate the heads up here on the declination decision. I'll walk you through my thought process on the A7 as it applied to the aforementioned now-draft article: my understanding of WP:SIGNIFICANCE was that because I didn't think that the article made a statement along the lines of any of the examples in the guidelines, just gave a description of the subject AND all of the sources that weren't primary just gave a list of the nominations that didn't describe the subject, I thought I was good on the A7 nomination.

I reply with my explanation because A7 isn't a CSD criteria I use frequently and I did in fact do some background reading before the nomination, so I was curious where our interpretations differed or where I faulted and missed the indication. Thanks again, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This was really borderline, and I'm probably more lenient with "claims of significance" than a lot of administrators. I thought that merit awards from an organization of film critics with several years' history was probably enough of a claim to pass the bar, but only just. Then I thought about it some more and sent it back to draft, it really wasn't ready and if that's all the sources that are available then it's a long way from WP:GNG. I also don't work with A7 very much, I don't like criteria that are that subjective. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector that's fair; I greatly appreciate the heads up and the guidance here. I saw the draftification and figured we weren't that far apart on our end opinion of the article. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MicrobiologyMarcus, thank you for your comment on my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joel_Mordi. I've made the changes as you advised. Please feel free to offer more suggestions if needed, so I can submit my article for review and get it into the mainspace. Thank you. ~Ana (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Christiana Stanley, in my opinion, the draft still reads as promotional and as a WP:BLP, does not meet the minimum standard for inline citations. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Marcus, Thank you for your review! My first attempt to write an article about Yuta Jinguji is declined. In fact, there has been an article about Yuta Jinguji in Japanese, Chinese, Cantonese and Indonesian on Wikipedia. I tried to translate the existing Chinese version in English. I translated, in my opinion, some important parts of the content, since the instruction on the page said I didn't need to translate all of them. However, when I tried to publish it, it showed me "Unknown unrecoverable error has occurred. Error details: You do not have permission to create new pages." Therefore, I copied my translation to start a whole new page and submitted it, which has been declined as your message. May I know how can I get permission to translate the existing page about Yuta Jinguji? Thank you so much! Sincerely, Rae Raekishi0929 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Raekishi0929 and welcome to Wikipedia! There's a couple things that I need to address in regards to the draft you've written.

First, because you've translated other's work, you need to provide attribution to that work. In the future, you'll need to provide that attribution in the edit summary when you add the text, per the guidance at WP:Copying within Wikipedia § Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. I've done that for Draft:Yuta Jinguji in the edit summary at Special:PermanentLink/1219383695.

Second, because the subject of the draft article is a living person, the WP:Biographies of living persons (or BLP) policy applies. As such, every statement will need to be verified and cite to an independent and reliable source, using inline citations. The inline citations for the draft only begin about halfway down in the current version.

By citing to reliable and secondary sources, you will presumably be able to demonstrate WP:Notability of the subject, provided that there is significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV) of the subject in those articles. Just because the subject has articles on other language projects does not mean that the subject is notable on the English Wikipedia, though other language sources may be used to demonstrate this notability.

Further, there are a lot of issues with the prose and style of the draft article that, when combined, make it appear more WP:Promotional than encyclopedic. The use of bold and over-linking of the article text is contrary to our WP:Manual of Style, and the external links are unsuitable, especially when linking to the subject's social media, and need to be removed (see WP:NOSOCIAL). In general, I would advise you read the WP:MOS and see what other Wikipedia pages look like to get a sense of writing your first draft article and see what is required to have a draft accepted to the mainspace.

If you have any further question, I would be happy to advise. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you accept redirect requests that are taking longer than usual to review using WP:AFC/R? 134.199.113.124 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Marcus,

I'm currently editing the article with new resources to enhance the content. I had a question about a video source... Is it acceptable to include it in the article, and what kind of source does a video represent (in depth, reliable...)?

Cheers

Antho Anthosalba (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Anthosalba, this is in regards to Draft:Sofia Pro, correct? In general, use of videos should supplement the text and not serve as the only source of a particular piece of information for an article. It's hard to know specifics without knowing which video you want to use and how you plan on using it. In general, the guidance on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images is mostly applicable to videos. If you're looking to include the video to supplement the text as a descriptor, all the copyright concerns and free use rational come into consideration. A video in that sense is not so much a "source" as any conclusions drawn from it would be original research. Though if you want to cite the content of the video, we do have templates like {{cite interview}} and {{Cite AV media}} but then you must be careful the information you are citing is most likely primary if it is coming from the subject. Again, this is broad advice, but I'd be happy to offer more guidance, but I would probably need more specifics and context of your intended use. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marcus. Yes, it's Sofia's draft. Thank you for the full details. I would like to extract some passages in order to quote them in the article and to complete the design part of the font. I would like to rely on the author's words.

Thanks again and cheers Anthosalba (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If you plan on using it as a source (and not including it in the article—my apologies, I misunderstood) then feel free to rely on the {{cite AV media}} or {{cite interview}} templates, whichever you feel would be more appropriate. In that case, consider the guidance on WP:Evaluating sources and what kind of material you are citing using your video source. Consider if it is WP:Independent or not; primary, secondary or tertiary; if it is WP:Reliable. While citing to these sources can be okay, depending on the context, different sources will support the overall article in different ways: non-independent sources may be used to support non-promotional material, but not promotional writing; primary sources may contribute to the understanding or explanation of an article, but would not support any claims of WP:Notability.

After you've included in, I might be able to offer more guidance but again, this is all speculative and general. Happy writing, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am very confused by your comment about needing footnotes in my article about Bonnie Rychlak. There are 25 footnotes and multiple links to other Wikipedia pages that establish the notability of this individual in TWO careers: artist and curator/writer. Per Wikipedia's criteria, this person is: a person is notable if: "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or 4. The person's work (or works) has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Having worked with the eminent artist Isamu Noguchi for decades, archived his work, created countless exhibitions and publication, and a founding member of the Noguchi Museum, Rychlak is considered one of the most authoritative voices on this artist and is widely cited. If there are specific references that are incorrectly cited, please point those out to me.

I am responding to the call to remedy the gap in Wikipedia entries between male and female artists. There are hundreds of entries of male artists of far less significance with far fewer references that have cleared the bar for this category.

How can I get this entry reviewed by someone in the Women Artists Project, who I think would be in a better position to assess. I have attempted to draw in others on this discussion but am not clear how to do so. Gaw54 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Gaw54, I've left maintenance tags in response to some my concerns about the article, but if you feel my considerations aren't valid, you are more than welcome to revert my changes and resubmit to allow another editor the chance the review your submission. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I've added reliable sources such as links to the programme from Guardian and Daily Mirror news articles? But it's still getting rejected.

With thanks, Stuart BellotaUK (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BellotaUK: you've added WP:Bare URLs to the end of your article but they are not inline around information to act as a supporting reference. You should consider formatting your references, the guide for which is at WP:REFB, so that reviewers may judge notability. The BBC url is to the show itself and should be removed as it is not a reference. Depending on the coverage, the BBC will also not be independent coverage to establish notability. The Mirror is also not great at establishing notability (see (WP:DAILYMIRROR) as it is a tabloid. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I want to know, why to declined my client draft,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michel_Ngue-Awane 103.3.205.216 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you've failed to cite your biography using proper inline citations to secondary and reliable sources. Further, the draft article is full of purple prose and very promotional, directly contradictory to WP:What Wikipedia is not, see WP:PROMO. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus,

This AFD is not formatted correctly. Please review instructions at WP:AFD for bundled nominations. You just can't write the article page titles in a list, they need the appropriate coding. It's not complicated but the closure will be complicated if the AFD is not formatted correctly. Thank you for addressing this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done @Liz thanks for catching my oversight! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)