Jump to content

User talk:CFA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Articles for creation
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #69
👤 User 💬 Talk 🗂️ Archives ✏️ Contributions 📄 Drafts 🔎 Articles created 🔧 Maintenance ✉️ Email me

Draft: Oli Dugmore

[edit]

Hello there, thanks for taking the time to review Draft: Oli Dugmore. Would it be possible for you to reconsider your conclusion here? I see there is a lengthy interview (i.e. significant coverage) with the subject by Cherwell (newspaper), an independent publication, which given the verbatim nature of the reportage, this is likely to be reliable. There's also an interview of him from journalism.co.uk. Dugmore is all over the internet, has appeared many times on TV, and runs PoliticsJOE, with over 300 million YouTube viewings. Chumpih t 06:34 + 45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chumpih: Hi, interviews generally don't count towards notability. This is especially true in this case where the articles are essentially just transcripts of the interview. There is no secondary, journalistic content here; they're just primary sources. Journalism.co.uk is a PR/advertising publisher for journalists so I doubt it's independent anyways. The rest of your sources are either unreliable (e.g. YouTube), non-independent (e.g. press releases), or only offer trivial mentions of the subject. A good number to look for is 3 independent, reliable sources that offer in-depth coverage about the subject. Happy editing, C F A 💬 14:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. A few counterpoints:
  • YouTube isn't inherently unreliable (per WP:RS/P). And on matters regarding the number of views for a channel etc., it is the most authoritative source. The other cites there are in reference to the Oxford Union and similar presentations - not the 300,000,000 views the subject's channel has gathered. For sure, the content in the videos is not being cited.
  • The website journalism.co.uk is effectively a trade magazine, and is independent of the subject. A categorisation of it being 'PR/advertising publisher for journalists' is not supported by the site's Wikipedia article.
  • Re. the WP:IV and the interview in Cherwell, that newspaper has strong editorial oversight (per entries on WP:RS here and here), and on the subject (Oli Dugmore) the interviewee (Oli Dugmore) is presumably at least knowledgeable, so the criteria in that essay are likely satisfied.
  • To categorise the reportage of the speech at Oxford Union where the subject was speaking alongside Nancy Pelosi as 'trivial' is debatable. And while that piece wouldn't convey WP:NOTE on its own, it proves statements in the draft page.
I agree, WP:3REFS (or indeed WP:THREE) is a worthy threshold. Likewise with WP:SIRS. Chumpih t 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Correns Corporation

[edit]

Hello CFA, thanks a lot for reviewing the draft article. I will do my best to revise the wording into a more encyclopedic format and remove any potential peacock expressions.

But with the requirements on the references, I have difficulties to understand the feedback. From my point of view, only following references are not meeting the necessary requirements:

3) Correns, Claus (1990). Meinen Freunden zum Abschied. Tōkyō: Nansosha. ISBN 978-4-8165-0042-8.

4) "Introduction - Correns Corporation". Introduction - Correns Corporation (in Japanese). Retrieved 2024-03-28

7) Boerner, Lisa (2014). "50 years DB Schenker in Japan The journey has just begun" (PDF). www.dbschenker.com (in English / Japanese). Schenker-Seino Co., Ltd. p. 34. Retrieved 31 May 2024.

However, they are cited at the text sections a,b,c and d. And all those sections were also covered with the other references, too. Even having some references which are not from an objective source can be ok under certain circumstances. Example, as reference of companies turnover figures. Also the information of the industries where the company is involved is most likely known by the company itself better than from other sources. So I believe that the reference to the website of that company is acceptable, unless there is contradicting information available.

Thus, kindly be asked to point out which reference else is of your concern, if any. My motivation is, so far, to keep the above 3 references within the article, for reason of completeness. Therefore I have added the additional sources to back up the topic with independent sources, too. Looking forward to your reply.

Merged account (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Merged account: Hi, on Wikipedia, companies must meet the notability guidelines for organizations in order to be eligible for an article. That is:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
We're looking for reliable, independent news articles, books, etc. that go in-depth about the company. Right now, none of your sources show that the company meets these guidelines. A good number to look for is 3 independent, reliable sources that offer in-depth coverage. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, C F A 💬 15:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance and prompt reply! Merged account (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza language

[edit]

Hi there,

I would like you to search for information on that topic. I have done four days of research and found that most of the information in the section about the Zaza language is incorrect. I corrected it, but a user named “historyofiran” reversed all my changes. I corrected it again, but you reversed it this time. I hope you can address this issue so that Wikipedia can be a better source for people trying to learn about culture. Many are trying to separate Kurdish people and add propaganda to the Wikipedia page about Kurdish people. Hope you understand. Raykoosi0 (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: HistoryofIran. C F A 💬 00:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raykoosi0: Removing half the article and drastically switching the POV is going to require some type of consensus. C F A 💬 00:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do some research, and you will find out that it's mostly wrong!?https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/s/TD6FqSq2b4 Raykoosi0 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not Reddit. Please see [1]. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i didn’t say to follow Reddit. I just sent it to you so you could read it and try to fix it. Don’t you work on Iranian topics? If you don't, I will, with a better source and more accuracy. But this time, don't reverse it! Raykoosi0 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you clearly have not been listening all this time. You will reach WP:CONSENSUS Talk:Zaza language before you remove sourced info again or get reported to WP:ANI (sorry for the notification spam CFA, last comment here). HistoryofIran (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you don’t understand! I’m saying fix it, and you’re saying no. I’m saying I will, and you’re saying I will be banned from editing! Goodbye, man. I think you have spent a lot of time on Wikipedia. 👋🏻 Raykoosi0 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afsheen_(musician)

[edit]

Hi! You made comment, and i do not agree with you. Please, can you look at the sources? I added this comment 3 times -Sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 , 11 are public articles, not interviews made about the individual and his work. Those are not some crazy paid puff, but different articles. So instead of creating a page about this individual as and artist,I should make 5 pages about his songs which are widely recognized and on global charts? He also produced a piece of art that was widely recognized. I believe the fact he wrote songs for Madonna, Janet Jackson, Selena Gomez, Chris Brown also speaks for the notability. thank you. J2009j (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2009j: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you're asking me. Your draft was declined 4 times by other reviewers since I last saw it. I have nothing to do with the other reviewers' decisions. When I reviewed it, you were citing Wikipedia and Last.fm (both extremely unreliable sources) in a biography of a living person, which was enough for me to decline it solely because of that. In terms of notability, WP:NMUSICIAN criteria #2 does not apply because he was one of many producers on a Madonna song. He must meet the general notability guidelines instead, which requires significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Here is my assessment of the sources you listed:
So, yes, you may be better off writing an article about one of his albums if you can't find any in-depth coverage about him. C F A 💬 14:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the criteria 2#- it is not only the song of Madonna, but song of multiple people. - Janet Jackson, Selena Gomez, Chris Brown and other. There are sources in Korean for example. I do not speak Korean. I added this - His song "Four Seasons" recorded by South Korean singer Taeyeon, claimed the number one spot on the Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 for two consecutive weeks and reached number 6 on the Billboard World Digital Songs chart.[1].
criteria 11 also applies here- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
criteria 10- performed at main places - such as Hollywood bowl, Tomorrowland and other main festivals as dj. J2009j (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j: Sure, but criteria #2 in this context applies to Madonna, Janet Jackson, Selena Gomez, Chris Brown, Taeyeon, etc., not Afsheen. Afsheen was a producer, not the musician, and thus is subject to different notability guidelines. Criteria 11 may apply if any of his songs have been placed in rotation by a major radio network, but not if any of the songs he produced did. Criteria 10 is referring to songs that have been, for example, used as soundtracks in notable movies, not where they have been performed. C F A 💬 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, so in case these works are those he produced- should we apply the category producer then or maybe songwriter? For producer that would produced a significant piece of work- which would be song. I did not add songs of "Janet Jackson, Selena Gomez, Chris Brown" and others in the article specifically. I added k-pop, Lindsay Stirling from recent. J2009j (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j: I think your best bet is looking for more in-depth sources about him so you can show he meets the general notability guidelines, instead of trying to prove he meets WP:NMUSICIAN. There is clearly coverage about his albums, and he did produce for notable artists, so maybe try finding a few more independent, reliable sources, then resubmit. C F A 💬 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.I know, but many people who work behind the scenes do not care about publicity so in some cases there are very few sources. I had the same case for another page I made, he even had an Emmy and still no publicity. I added sources I could find. Can you take a look since you already are familiar with the article? I also found some charts- look at his credits. Those are well-known names - https://norwegiancharts.com/showperson.asp?name=AFSHeeN But no publicity, weirdly. I added what I could find on Google. J2009j (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's looking better. I'd say you have a fairly high chance of getting it accepted, considering the fair amount of spread-out coverage. This Latin Grammy nomination, more interestingly, because it's in his name, may actually satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN #8. I've left a comment for future reviewers. C F A 💬 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! J2009j (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @CFA. I found this - For the criteria 2#- His song "Four Seasons" recorded by South Korean singer Taeyeon, claimed the number one spot on the Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 for two consecutive weeks and reached number 6 on the Billboard World Digital Songs chart.https://www.festground.com/articles/afsheen-min-jiryuh/534
Think criteria 11 also applies here- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. J2009j (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, because again, both criteria #2 and #11 apply to Taeyeon, not Afsheen, who was a producer. Producers are not presumed notable if a song they produced charts, only the musician is. C F A 💬 16:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ FestGround. "K-Pop Hit Maker AFSHEEN Meets Former Miss A Member Min for Their First Collaboration, 'Jiryuh' (Dope)". FestGround. Retrieved 2024-08-01.

review of "Draft:Cignaroli Academy and Brenzoni School of Painting and Sculpture"

[edit]

Hi, CFA! After your rejection of my draft I've added sources on the last part as you suggested me. Would you please take a look at it? Thank you very much Neuromancer2022 (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuromancer2022: Thank you for taking the time to improve it. It's looking much better. There are still a few paragraphs that don't have inline citations attached to them. Generally, you should aim for every paragraph to have at least one inline citation so readers are able to verify the information. I would suggest working on that, and then another reviewer should check it out. Happy editing, C F A 💬 15:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Capitalism

[edit]

You recently reviewed the article Academic Capitalism and made a comment I don't understand at all. When you say "The term does appear to be used, so a separate article may be warranted" what exactly are you referring to? Additionally, you are citing the reason for the decline due to what I think you are trying to say is the 'tone' of the article, and opinions in the narrative...can you please point out 'opinions' because I don't see it. The article is written as an academic term, thus it does read like a journal as many academic terminology articles on this platform currently read. Not to mention that as many times as this article has been reviewed, no one has ever said that about the narrative. This makes me wonder exactly where you're coming from. Thank you for your explanation. Geraldine Aino (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldine Aino: Hi, I was referring to the notability of the subject. Since the term appears to be the subject of multiple reliable, secondary sources, it most likely meets the general notability guidelines (i.e., it's not an unused neologism). That was a note to future reviewers. Now, I'm not sure if it warrants its own article or if it should be merged into a parent article (like Capatalism), but that is an editorial decision that can be made later. Right now, your article reads like an essay. Wikipedia articles, like all tertiary sources, are supposed to summarize what secondary sources say about the subject. See this paragraph for example:
Academic capitalist expands revenue sources for higher education during times when state budgets are tight. The authors also note the trend of increasing professionalism in administrative support for new economy activities. Unfortunately, these same new layers of administration contribute to the rising costs of higher education, in some cases negating the revenues from academic capitalism.
It appears to be synthesis based on your own reading of a source (words like "unfortunately" do not belong in neutral Wikipedia articles). There is no citation attached to that claim either. I'm not sure what you're referring to by saying "as many times as this article has been reviewed" because, as far as I can tell, it was only reviewed once before. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, C F A 💬 15:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I understand what you were trying to say now that you have explained it👍 However, I would like to reiterate my opinion that the article does not read like an essay, but in fact reads like most other terminology-based articles on Wikipedia which are academic in nature. None of the narrative is of my own opinion whatsoever. The section you referred to is objective. The article has been reviewed several times, all with different reasons for decline. Although I am not the original author, I am certainly no stranger to getting articles approved, and this one seems one of the better efforts. At this time it's not worth my time anymore to argue about it's notability and will abandon the attempt. Geraldine Aino (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo help (my work)

[edit]

Hello CFA,

I am attempting to upload some photos (spacecraft, satellites, rocket launches). I was a aerospace engineer and have a nice collection of these archives. When I try the system thinks its not my work and denies me. All the photos I took personally with a film camera (1980's and 90's). Is there any assistance you could possibly offer?

Thank you in advance CFA! Nist2024 (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nist2024: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Are you trying to upload them on Commons with the File Upload Wizard? I'm not very familiar with Commons so I probably can't help you if you're getting an error there. I suggest asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk where other editors are able to way in. If you're having trouble on Commons, asking at the Commons Help Desk will probably give you the answers you need. Happy editing, C F A 💬 15:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CFA! I will try that. Nist2024 (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT and the other user

[edit]

I just wanted to ask you what telltale signs made you determine that user Raayaan9911 was using ChatGPT in responding to me. I certainly felt like I was talking to a brick wall because the responses were so off-the-wall and irrelevant to what I had said, but my initial inclination was to chalk that up to any or all of (a) someone for whom English may not be a first language, (b) someone who may have been using templated responses, (c) someone with "special needs" (I won't take that comment any further than that), or (d) someone who just plain wants to troll. I have some suspicions that Raayaan9911 might be a sockpuppet of (1) a user I reported earlier this summer who was then banned and (2) the user (now banned as a sockpuppet) who made the edit that prompted my edit summary about which Raayaan9911 was purporting to complain, but the usual investigative tools aren't turning anything up so far. As you will have seen from my comments, I found it puzzling and annoying that someone who's been a registered user for two weeks would adopt such a high-handed approach, but if it's a use of generative artificial intelligence that would explain a lot. Long way of saying, I'm interested in knowing what you looked for to identify such a use. Thanks! 1995hoo (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1995hoo: I find it pretty easy to recognize at this point. Stuff like It's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone in all contributions to ensure a positive and collaborative editing environment and If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to reach out. We value your contributions and are here to support you in maintaining a positive and respectful editing environment. are classic ChatGPT responses. It just isn't natural. I imagine English isn't their first language judging by their responses (Ahh Okay i Type Myself) and otherwise poor grammar in articles. I only found this user because their grammar in articles was so poor that it was flagged as "potentially unconstructive" on Recent Changes. Now, there's not necessairly anything wrong with that in itself, but ChatGPT is certainly not helping. C F A 💬 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Most of what I know about ChatGPT comes from the stories in the legal press here in the USA about attorneys who have landed in hot water when they tried to use ChatGPT for legal research and it fabricated case citations (obviously a huge problem that will not get a happy response from a court). But I agree, the "We value your contributions" language was exceptionally strange for a single user to employ, especially a new user who is pretty obviously not an administrator. Incidentally, I would never have found this user but for a message the user left on my talk page complaining that I used "offensive language" in an edit summary, apparently referring to my use of a grawlix. Hopefully I won't have any further interactions with that user! Thanks for the information on ChatGPT. 1995hoo (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that GPTZero (an AI detector) returned "100% AI" for both of their responses, now that I've checked. It's pretty much guaranteed at this point. C F A 💬 16:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All the more reason to delete the comment that started all this from my talk page, then. I very much appreciate your assistance! 1995hoo (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CFA I Never Use a ChatGPT Again in Articles. If you think i made mistake? You can leave me in talk page Raayaan9911 (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:48:10, 2 August 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Novalindanger

[edit]


Hi. My draft has been denied a few times despite the updates I've made. I really want to follow all of the rules and make this work.

For instance, the feedback I got back mentions I need to have reference(s) that meet all of the 4 criteria: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, andstrictly independent of the subject. Looking at the Polygon article that is linked and reference, I feel it checks all 4 of those boxes.

When it comes to "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia", I feel I'm writing it from a neutral point of view, but please tell me what I can do to meet this need better.

Thanks so much!

Novalindanger (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novalindanger: Hi, at the moment, your draft's references do not show that the subject meets the general notability guideline which is the main criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. We're looking for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. A good number to look for is 3 in-depth reliable, independent articles, books, etc. entirely about the subject. Here is a source analysis detailing why it was declined:
Consider finding more significant coverage and resubmitting. Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, C F A 💬 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024 GOCE drive award

[edit]
The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to CFA for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

[edit]

That took longer than I thought. I left a comment on the AfD. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only found it because of a post on WP:AFCHD. It had already been marked as reviewed. C F A 💬 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the notification of the discussion to the major editor's talk page, out of a sense of pedantry 😇 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the edits of Sine qua non

[edit]

I recently had a chat with an admin. The admin said we were edit warring. I came here to warn if the IP edits Sine qua non, not to revert. Also both our vandalism warnings were unwarrented. The admin says no vandalism had taken place. So I am giving you a warning before we get sanctions placed on us. Thanks for understanding, Felicia (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware it is technically an edit war. I reverted their edits twice and attempted to start a discussion with them on their talk page. They didn't respond. I didn't revert them again because I don't really care. Their edits certainly aren't constructive, but if they're not willing to discuss, there's not much anyone can do. C F A 💬 18:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2024)

[edit]
Smiling woman
Hello, CFA. The article for improvement of the week is:

Happiness

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: List of public art in Chicago • Cape (geography)

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Draft:kagoj

[edit]

Dear Sir

I personaly watched the film Kagoj and i realized this is suck a film that deserve to be live in Wikipedia.

I do feel such a good film should have an article in wikipedia. Then i have seen it is in draft, i started to make it in life.but i am very new in wrtiting in wikipedia. Could you please help to keep this wonderful movie article in wikipedia! Looking for your kind responses Alizdirector (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent draft rejection

[edit]

Recently, you rejected the draft of the article Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player), without actually reviewing it, because fellow editor DoubleGrazing had rejected it before, stating that (1) a main Stuttgart media is not independent of me (the subject), (2) articles written solely about me (the subject) do not provide coverage about me and are "just a passive mention, also thus contradicting with his own statements from last month when he APPROVED 2 of the current sources, and required an additional one similar one for the draft to be approved. This is why the draft was resubmitted when the new source, the main Stuttgart media Stuttgarter Wochenblatt's report about me (the subject) was added to the draft.

Of course, the quick unreasonable rejection from Double Grazing followed and I resubmitted the draft awaiting proper review. Then you, without reviewing it, declined it due to his previous rejection.

I am here to ask you to kindly explain (1) how a main media is dependant on me (the subject) and (2) how articles written solely and only about me (the subject) are "not significant coverage, but only a passive mention of the subject".

After you fail to provide an explanation for these, I prolly expect you to approve the draft, which has since been resubmitted again.

Should action not follow, I will be forced to take further measures against you and Double Grazing.

Best wishes The Kalinator Kalin Stefanov Kalinators (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalinators: What "further measures" are you planning to take? C F A 💬 13:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a court in Strasbourg. Kalinators (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... And that's another legal threat. C F A 💬 13:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Admin chiming in) Another? Where was the other one, and was this user previously warned? I didn't see a warning, so I just left {{uw-legal}}. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2]. No, they probably weren't aware of the policy. C F A 💬 13:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred @CFA How about you approve the draft and then do whatever warnings, bans, policies or whatever you want to?
Nobody has yet been able to explain how I am related to a main Stuttgart media and how an article solely about a subject is not providing significant coverage of the mentioned subject but only a passive mention!
And as I said, when you cannot answer this question, we will meet in Strasbourg. You must learn to keep your personal bias for yourselves!!!! Kalinators (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I don't live in Europe. C F A 💬 14:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were aware before that message, so they're now blocked under WP:NLT. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derix Glasstudios

[edit]

Hi, ⁣

Thank you for your review of my article. I made changes to present a more neutral wording. One thing I didn't do was adding more or different sources. I have different sources such as a German public broadcasting (no private TV station), huge newspaper and the official page of the cologne cathedral, as well as some of the artists pages. Do you really think I should add more? Can you give me a hint maybe, what kind of source you would suggest I would be looking for? Thank you and have a nice day!

SimonMüller87 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonMüller87: The article is looking better, but some parts still read like an advertisement. For example, Throughout its history, the company has contributed significantly to the development and international recognition of glass art. is purely promotional and doesn't even have a citation attached to support the claim. For an organization to be considered "eligible" for an article on Wikipedia, it must meet the notability guidelines for organizations. That boils down to having significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Usually three in-depth articles about the topic in three separate independent, reliable sources is what we're looking for before we accept. Here is a source analysis of the references in your draft:
Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, C F A 💬 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Article

[edit]

Dear Sir/Madame,

Hello. I hope this message finds you well. Few minutes ago you rejected my article "Transactional Area Network" and, if I understand correctly, I should re-evaluate some of the sources? If that is the case, please confirm, so I can make these small adjustments and re-submit it. Thank you in advance!

Kind Regards, TheRedLantern (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedLantern: You literally just copied and pasted part of this paper then generated the rest with ChatGPT. It is not written in the neutral point of view or supported by reliable sources. There is no indication that this topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines either. Please rewrite the article in your own neutral, words, and add citations appropriately. Thank you. C F A 💬 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Chavous

[edit]

I listed my references concerning my father's information. Jbarne79 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-32

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Feature news

  • Advanced item Two new parser functions will be available this week: {{#dir}} and {{#bcp47}}. These will reduce the need for Template:Dir and Template:BCP47 on Commons and allow us to drop 100 million rows from the "what links here" database. Editors at any wiki that use these templates, can help by replacing the templates with these new functions. The templates at Commons will be updated during the Hackathon at Wikimania. [3][4]
  • Communities can request the activation of the visual editor on entire namespaces where discussions sometimes happen (for instance Wikipedia: or Wikisource: namespaces) if they understand the known limitations. For discussions, users can already use DiscussionTools in these namespaces.
  • The tracking category "Pages using Timeline" has been renamed to "Pages using the EasyTimeline extension" in TranslateWiki. Wikis that have created the category locally should rename their local creation to match.

Project updates

  • Editors who help to organize WikiProjects and similar on-wiki collaborations, are invited to share ideas and examples of successful collaborations with the Campaigns and Programs teams. You can fill out a brief survey or share your thoughts on the talkpage. The teams are particularly looking for details about successful collaborations on non-English wikis.
  • Advanced item The new parser is being rolled out on Wikivoyage wikis over the next few months. The English Wikivoyage and Hebrew Wikivoyage were switched to Parsoid last week. For more information, see Parsoid/Parser Unification.

Learn more

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 20:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft Article

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Draft:Action Tendency. While the term may be considered a neologism, it has been in use since at least 1979 and has been the primary subject of articles which have received several hundred citations. Will including these sources be sufficient to amend the article? If so, I'll make the edits and resubmit it. Doughbo (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doughbo: Yes, those papers look good for establishing notability. Feel free to include them and resubmit. I don't see any other issues with the article. Happy editing, C F A 💬 21:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. The article has been re-submitted with additional content and citations. Doughbo (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tony award

[edit]

Hi I want to clarify and discuss your tony Award comment. the outsiders won the tony award for Best New Musial which means the producers also win the tony award for best new musical. So yes, Marylee Fairbanks, as a co-producer has in fact won the tony award. i not sure how else to prove it other than if a person is listed as a producer of the show and the show has won the tony, the producers win the tony award. Do you need further paperwork? Maybe i can find an article to explain how the tony process works? woud that be helpful?

as far as editing, i am happy to exclude the early work if reviews and casting notices are not proof enough. So i will go in and edit everything that is not mentioned in the Boston Globe and resubmit.

Thanks so much and please let me know if this is sufficient Childrenandart (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Childrenandart: No, it wasn't awarded to her specifically, so she does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria #1. If she had won the Tony Award for Best Direction of a Musical under her name, for example, then it would apply. What she may meet is WP:NPRODUCER criteria #3 for [creating] or [playing] a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. Considering her name is only mentioned once in the musical's article as Other producers include Betsy Dollinger, Cristina Marie Vivenzio, The Shubert Organization, Marylee Fairbanks, Debra Martin Chase and others., and there isn't much in-depth coverage about her, it suggests that her role in co-creating was not "major" enough to qualify under this guideline. Regardless, people who meet these guidelines are not "presumed" or "inherently" notable, there is just likely enough coverage to meet other guidelines. Currently, the only source that contributes to the basic notability guidelines for people is The Boston Globe article, with nothing outside of that. Reviewers generally look for at least 3 sources like The Boston Globe in order to accept. Consider finding more in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources before resubmitting.
Also, you have not disclosed your apparent conflict of interest. Disclosure of your COI is a requirement for having your draft accepted. You have created two drafts, Michael Christoper Fairbanks and Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks which have collectively been most of your edits. I have left instructions on your talk page. Please respond to this message stating how you know the subjects of your drafts. Thank you. C F A 💬 15:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is CFA?

[edit]

Are you a bot or a human? Does your name even follow community standards? You are just spamming around and being a hurdle in the way of those who need to update something on Wikipedia. You mentioned your email address on your profile so that people will contact you and you will earn money. Because you are the only hurdle that people are encountering. People who are reading this thread will definitely agree on this. So, I repeat, who are you? UsamaSarwar (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a spam bot. Thank you for noticing. C F A 💬 19:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, how we can get rid of you? UsamaSarwar (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... it's up to you. What do you have in mind? C F A 💬 19:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you UsamaSarar. How do we report this person? Childrenandart (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know @Childrenandart but @CFA is a pain in a**. UsamaSarwar (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's depends on what you're looking for, but there are a variety of options. Usually, the administrators' noticeboard is the go-to pick. C F A 💬 19:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @UsamaSarwar and Childrenandart: you each seem have encountered quality control which prevents each of you from meeting your personal objectives. Good. It is Wikipedia's objectives theatre more important.
Now please report CFA to any of the major noticeboards you wish, though please choose only the best for your purposes. The suggestion of the Administrators Noticeboard feels an excellent choice. Please be aware that all behaviours exhibited will be scrutinised. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its good to report this person because if enough reports of their being difficult get to the leaders then changes can be made. Childrenandart (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Childrenandart There are no leaders. This is a community project where all, CFA, you, me, have equal standing. So please report CFA. I hope lodging a report meets your objectives. Do it well. Do it wisely. Or not. It's your free choice. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:kagoj

[edit]

Dear sir

Could you please check one more time for the draft:Kagoj

This film deserve an article and the source given here are all autheticated and real source. If you check ogf any bangladeshi movie has the source the same, here is most reputed and authenticated news paper that i tried to add. Even if you want any award related proveness source and video source, i could provide. Just i am requesting you sir, to check once more all source added here.

Alizdirector (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:49:59, 7 August 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by MakoDan

[edit]


Hi there, Thanks for the comment on the draft. I'm still getting the hang of some of the specifics & standards of things on Wikipedia for different kinds of pages. Just a sort of response/query about some of your comments.

Source 1 and 2 are primary sources.

Fair, I can edit in alternatives for these.

Source 3 is a random blog.

Locus Magazine is not a random blog. The specific web article cited is from their July 2022 print issue of the magazine. Locus Online has won Hugo Awards, the main magazine has won numerous. It's a staple of science fiction & fantasy media.

Source 4 is your best source, but it is more about her book than herself. Same with source 5.

Both sources are more about her book, but they are used to illustrate the praise & awards received for her work.

Source 6 is another primary source written by her.

Source 6 is neither a primary source, nor written by Missouri Williams. It is written by Matilda Battersby. The Bookseller is also the premier UK-trade publication for publishing & literature. I'll go about editing in some better references for things tonight, but I'd appreciate some clarification on those points.

- MakoDan



MakoDan (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MakoDan: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have to say: Locus Magazine has a really terrible website for a published magazine. But yes, you're right, it does appear to have some editorial control. Regardless, it is again, an in-depth article of her book, not of the author. This type of article helps when writing about her book, but doesn't do much otherwise. To meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, there should be enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of the author to write a biographical article.
My comment on source 6 was a mistake. I accidentally skipped a source and numbered it wrong. The Bookseller may actually be your best source. It offers at least a couple paragraphs of coverage on the author herself. Source 7 is a primary source written by the subject, which is what I was referring to. I do believe the subject is notable, but your references could use some work to help show that. Happy editing. C F A 💬 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CFA&oldid=1239197975"