User talk:TheObsidianGriffon

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I have a question about the comment that you left on the draft that I have been putting together for a log time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg I believe you did not see the talk page where I have been assessing sources with another editor. User talk:SmokeyJoe#draft

We have established that sources https://law.asia/harveys-passage-to-india/, Financial Times, Tech Crunch meet GNG. All these sources are reliable, independent articles and within the guidelines of WP:INTERVIEWS.

There is actually a similar discussion about another Silicon valley entrepreneur addressing the same points that I and some other people made on the talk page - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hong (entrepreneur) (2nd nomination)

You wrote "Comment: I'm cutting the cord here because it keeps being resubmitted without the core issue of notability being addressed, and nothing that I've seen on the talk page makes me confident that the subject is notable. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)"

The article was submitted 2 times by me, which is practically nothing comparing to 10 + times some drafts are re-submitted. It was not submitted 10 times with identical content without addressing the issues. In fact, the issue have been actively addressed in the talk page. The last comment the reviewer made on submissions was the tone that they did not like and I asked them about it. And, as you can see, some changes were made afterward, before you declined it. I'd appreciate if you make appropriate changes so I can continue working on the article and we can continue the discussion on the talk about it. Thank you! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Rejected means rejected. End of. No more article. aesurias (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@WestwoodHights573: I see no agreement on SmokeyJoe's talk page, or the talk page for the draft. Just because you insist on something, doesn't mean that a consensus was reached. This page was deleted at AfD only 1 week ago, you recreated it as a draft and had 5 different editors tell you it was not notable/promotional. After the last rejection, you resubmitted almost immediately with minimal changes. That demonstrates that you don't understand notability or how to reach a consensus. At this point, I think you should stop attempting to create this page against consensus. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TheObsidianGriffon, do you have a moment? I’ve founded in depth significant coverage from reliable sources for this draft to satisfy WP:THREE, this, this and this, also this. If you have a moment, it’d be much appreciated. Thanks for your time!~2026-26276-5 (talk) ~2026-26276-5 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Good job finding those sources and adding them to the draft. I don't know if I have time to review it but I can see that it's in the queue awaiting review from someone. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know apparently you have been bypassed for Draft:Ian Macoun since Ian Macoun has been created.

You might want to check if that article meets the minimum requirements. Imcdc Contact 10:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Пути неисповедимы requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Vestrian24Bio 11:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1,000 article reviews during 2025. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that went by quickly! TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheObsidianGriffon,

and thank you for reviewing my Draft:Invisible Technologies! With your feedback, I've made a substantial revision (diff). However, I still have some points where I’m still unsure.

If you happen to have a minute, I’d be very grateful if you could take a look at my questions:

1. I removed the list of clients per WP:NOTPRICE, but kept mentions of three projects that were discussed in independent media: DoorDash (History, 2020); Charlotte Hornets and SAIC (Operations). Is that acceptable?

2. In the Industry context section, I wanted to show the limitations of the company's technology, but I'm not sure if this is acceptable, given that the CEO himself talks about it on Bloomberg TV (primary source). Is it OK?

Even if you just answer YES or NO to my points and copy+paste unacceptable facts from the article in response – without any explanation — that will already be very helpful. I will address it before resubmitting. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 19:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandra Goncharik: Nice work! I recommend avoiding primary sources if you can, and maybe merging "Operations" into the history section if that makes sense. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheObsidianGriffon: Thank you very much for your review and the helpful feedback! Yes, the Industry content should be removed altogether, since it relied only on primary sources. Also, I agree that operations fit much better in the History section. I’ve made both edits and resubmitted the article, and I’d really appreciate it if you have a moment to look over the final version. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 19:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article André M. Levesque, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André M. Levesque until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheObsidianGriffon- Thanks for reviewing my draft of the GlossGenius article. I saw in the feedback that the tone was not encyclopedic. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes…I was curious if you could note a few specific examples I could improve with encyclopedic tone? (I started editing to improve it just now but thought it would help to know if there was something specific!)

Thanks again for taking the time to review, would appreciate your advice/ideas to improve! JamesH97 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @TheObsidianGriffon, Thanks for your speedy review of my draft for Draft:Yves Rothman. Kindly see the updated page. You stated that the submission was declined as "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions)". I have expanded the article to prove the subject's long standing notoriety as a songwriter, member of several bands, and extensive history producing music in the public forum. There are now about fifty links and citations from reliable publications reviewing his music and more, including The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Los Angeles Times, Pitchfork, Sony Music etc.. The subject has many mentions all over Wikipedia and I'm looking forward to connecting the dots. Thank you again for taking the time to review, I appreciate you! TAURUSbae (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Please respond to the COI message on your talk page and remove the misleading content from your userpage, thanks! TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)