User talk:Cabrils

Per your suggestion (thank you) made edits to Imraan Valodia page and answered your questions and requests on talk page.

Draft talk:Imraan Valodia#What makes Prof Valodia notable

hope you can re-review! thanks OceanicManta (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page and it wil make communicating and interactions on Wikipedia much more efficient.

Thank you for that helpful information on the draft's Talk page.

Could you please address whether you have a conflict of interest? I suppose you are Imraan Valodia or work for him? Cabrils (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils, thanks for your note. I will figure out how to make a user page, thanks for the tip.

I am not Imraan Valodia and I do not work for him. I'm a colleague of his from another country and a big fan of his work and wishing for more economists and academics from Africa to have wikipedia pages. OceanicManta (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I just resubmitted the page with extensive edits to demonstrate notability, thanks for re-reviewing! OceanicManta (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @OceanicManta, please see my comment on the draft page. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cabrils,

Thank you for your earlier feedback on my draft. It is helping me understand how to approach this properly. I've spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the relevant Wikipedia guidelines since your decline of the draft as well as several examples and help pages. I admit I'm still sometimes puzzled about how certain articles with minimal sources remain up with lots of detail and are considered notable, but I do appreciate why the standards here, especially in a case with COI history, need to be applied carefully.

I've made a full COI disclosure and have focused on secondary sources. A friend more familiar with Wikipedia pointed me toward the guidance at WP:NAUTHOR and suggested that the strongest demonstration of notability would come from the academic reviews of books I've published and co-authored. Based on your earlier request, I've identified what I believe are the three best sources that establish notability:

- Boag, Simon (2009-10-14). "Does Psychology Really Need Another Personality Textbook?". PsycCRITIQUES. 54 (41) 6. doi:10.1037/a0017499.

- Colotla, Victor A. (2017). "On the Ubiquity of Sexuality A Review of Sexuality and Its Disorders: Development, Cases, and Treatment". PsycCRITIQUES. 62 (51). doi:10.1037/A0040958.

- Garrick, Jacqueline (2006). "The Humor of Trauma Survivors". Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 12 (1–2): 169–182. doi:10.1300/J146v12n01_09. ISSN 1092-6771.

I have included these three reviews in the draft alongside additional reviews and sources. If you have time to take another look at my new draft, I would be very grateful. Psymba (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Psymba, please see my response on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Cabrils, I've added some new book reviews to the draft. Please share your thoughts before I resubmit. Thank you immensely. Psymba (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Psymba,

They're good additions and refinements.

I've taken the liberty of making some minor edits, including some detail about your personal life that I feel are WP:EXCESSDETAIL.

At this point, while being mindful of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI, on balance I feel the draft is "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace" (per WP:AFCR), and meets WP:NPROF and/or WP:AUTHOR.

If you are content with my amendments to the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Good work! Cabrils (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cabrils,

I can't thank you enough for your guidance and attention to this. I'm content with your amendments. Although I'm wondering why the Personal life was removed as excess detail. That sort of information seems to be standard on most other articles and often goes into even more detail. My wife Lidia has worked with me on some of the books mentioned in the article, so I thought it would be especially relevant to mention. The information on my children seemed to be something very common on other biography pages. I've made one correction to the draft, the date of publication on one of the books.

Please accept it into mainspace whenever you can. Thank you again for your guidance. Psymba (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Psymba,

Very happy to help, it's got to a good place now I think.

Regarding the personal details, I just felt in circumstances of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI that less is more at this stage. Perhaps in time it could be re-included.

Thanks for your patience, collaboration and willingness to adapt to the criteria.

If there's anything I can help with in the future please don't hesitate to drop me a note here, I'd be happy to do what I can.

Page now accepted into main space. Welcome to Wikipedia!

All the best, Cabrils (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my draft and thank you for providing a detailed assessment of the issues. I have edited the article based on your feedback.

1. He meets criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. According to Google Scholar, his working has been cited over 24,000 times and he has an h-index of 81. According to Scopus, his work has a citation count of over 15000 and an h-index of 61. I have now added this information to the article.

2. I have removed information I felt was excessive detail and made the article read like a CV. I have only left information about his primary appointments and a chairmanship to an important working group.

3. I have declared my COI on my user page, and not on my talk page based on this guideline. I can add the same information to my talk page as well if both are necessary. Please let me know. I understand that my paid status makes me biased and oblivious to errors in the article so I am completely open to your feedback. Thank you for providing very detailed and concrete feedback while declining the article. HRShami (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HRShami,

On balance I agree the draft is "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace" (see WP:AFCR), and meets WP:NPROF. If you care to re-submit the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I have just resubmitted the draft. Thank you. HRShami (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Well done @HRShami, article accepted into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I want to leave this here because you were very thorough in the feedback you provided while declining this draft. You provided detailed information on the problems of the draft. Thank you very much. HRShami (talk)

HRShami (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @HRShami, that's very kind. You did good work, so give yourself a pat on the back too! If you draft any articles in the future, feel free to give me ping here and I would be happy to review. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Thank you very much. I will definitely reach out. HRShami (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Carbils. Thank you for your detailed feedback on the draft Draft:Perniclas Bedow. I have now added more reliable, secondary sources. I believe this subject meets WP:CREATIVE criteria #1, because their work has been the subject of multiple independent features in respected international design publications (Slanted, Creative Review, It's Nice That) and recognized by leading design institutions including D&AD and Cannes Lions.

The three best sources that establish notability:

1. Blake, Vicky (2022-07-14). "Slanted in Stockholm: Bedow - Slanted Magazine #39". slanted. Retrieved 2025-12-19.

5. "Graphic Design: Bedow create an identity that can be used as a board game". www.itsnicethat.com. Retrieved 2025-05-09.

8. Woodward, Adam (2025-09-08). "Sweden's sporting icons get typographic postage stamp tribute". Creative Review. Retrieved 2025-12-19. Pilkie02 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pilkie02,

Thanks for the information.

On balance I agree the draft is "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace" (see WP:AFCR), and meets WP:CREATIVE. For example, [this article] reports in some detail on a set of stamps designed by the subject that was commissioned by "PostNord, the largest postal service in the Nordic countries".

If you care to re-submit the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Carbils-

I've added the three best to the talk page. My choices are the oscar awards (generally considered important and independant), a 4-part series describing the technology and the company in Music Technology magazine, and a Mix magazine article on the CBS/sony post-production facility, based on WaveFrame. This is also very detailed.

1. "The 76th Scientific & Technical Awards 2003 | 2004". oscars.org. 2004.
2. Meyer, Chris (1988-09-01). "The AudioFrame Explained part I" (PDF). Music Technology. 3 (2): 22–26 – via World Radio History. (4 parts)
3. Blair, Ivan (1992-07-01). "Digital Post-Production at the former Columbia Westside" (PDF). Mix Magazine. 16 (7): 48–54 – via World Radio History.

The 4th part of the meyer article is not available online, I have purchased a copy on ebay, and will try to get it onto the archive site.

I've added several references, and corrected a lot of spelling errors.

I think I've properly note the COI.

any advice on editing, finding spelling would be helpful, I can't find any tools in the editor. WhaleFarm (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WhaleFarm, thanks for the ping and this further information.

What is the nature of you conflict of interest? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I am a named party. No financial stake since 1992. WhaleFarm (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to make the tone more neutral, and added more references.

I've also tried to expalin and document the other path that the equipment took to getting another, earlier Oscar.

WhaleFarm (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WhaleFarm, please see my reply on the draft's Talk page. At this point it would be best to continue any discussion on the draft's Talk page (for greater visibility and convenience) rather than here. Please do tag me there though so I am notified of any reply you post (and for absolute peace of mind you may wish to leave a brief note here also alerting me of it). Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Cabrils,

Thank you for your detailed review.

I have carefully reviewed your comments and made edits to the draft accordingly. I significantly shortened it. I want to address several points you raised:

Regarding notability: The subject has received significant coverage in major art publications including The New York Times, e-flux, Artforum, and other established art media outlets. Several other editors have also found the subject notable, and I believe the extensive list of museum exhibitions—including participation in the Venice Biennale—speaks to the subject's standing in the contemporary art field.

Regarding sources: I have not used social media sources (Twitter, Instagram, Spotify, etc.) in the references. However, if you could point out specific sources you find unreliable, I will address them immediately and replace them with stronger secondary sources.

The six best sources establishing notability are:

1. ART FORUM (the most important art publication worldwide) https://www.artforum.com/events/anton-ginzburg-237080/

2. The New York Times (T-Magazine) https://archive.nytimes.com/tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/visiting-artists-anton-ginzburg/

3. White Chapel London museum https://www.whitechapelgallery.org/events/anton-ginzburg-at-the-back-of-the-north-wind/

4. e-FLUX (Venice Biennale announcement) https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/35502/anton-ginzburg-at-the-back-of-the-north-wind-collateral-event-of-the-54th-venice-biennale

5. US State Department https://art.state.gov/personnel/anton_ginzburg/

6. Museum of Wyoming University https://www.uwyo.edu/artmuseum/exhibitions/2023/index-anton-ginzburg-ashnest.html

7. Calgary Contemporary Museum https://www.contemporarycalgary.com/whats-on/anton-ginzburg-surface

I believe this draft meets WP:CREATIVE criteria #3, as the subject has exhibited at internationally recognized institutions and received sustained critical attention in reliable art publications.

I welcome any additional specific guidance and would be grateful if you could review the revised draft. Thank you.

Ekaterina Ost (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cabrils

Hi, thanks for checking.

I do not have a paid conflict of interest — I have not been compensated in any way for creating or editing this article. I am familiar with the subject, which I disclosed earlier, and I’ve made a good-faith effort to follow Wikipedia’s neutrality, verifiability, and conflict-of-interest guidelines.

If you have specific concerns about content that you believe does not comply with Wikipedia policy (e.g. neutrality, sourcing, notability), please point them out directly and I’ll be happy to address them. Thanks.

Ekaterina Ost (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ekaterina Ost, thanks for the ping. You'll be pleased to see my positive reply on the draft's Talk page.

I would encourage you to create a User Page because it will make communicating much more efficient (and you would receive automatic notifications when editors write to you, like in this case). Cabrils (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Cabrils,

Thank you for your reply, and as per your suggestion, I resubmitted my draft. I would be grateful if you could accept it into mainspace. Thank you for your guidance and help. Happy New Year.

Ekaterina Ost (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy to help. Well done! Draft now accepted into main space. Cabrils (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Ekaterina Ost (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Cabrils

Thank you for your generous help. Could you also please remove the COI maintenance notice on this article. The issues noted by the template have been addressed: the content has been revised for neutral point of view, and relies on appropriate sources. Per Wikipedia guidelines, maintenance templates aren’t meant to remain once the issue has been resolved. If there are any remaining concerns, I’m happy to address them.

Thanks for taking a look, Ekaterina Ost (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

COI tag removed. Cabrils (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Ekaterina Ost (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

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) 17:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the helpful notes on the Vidhya Rangaraju draft.

I went ahead and posted the WP:THREE best sources to the draft's talk page like you asked. I focused on her feature in The Scientist, her SfN award, and her citation stats. I also specified the WP:NPROF criteria she meets.

I also added the COI declaration to my own user talk page to be totally transparent. Whenever you have a moment, I'd appreciate a reassessment. Thank you! Fabianb85 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fabianb85, thanks for the ping. Please see my response on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Cabrils,

Good morning. Thank you so much for your constructive feedback and editorial guidance. It certainly made my day to read your comment - "well done on creating the draft." Now that I have had a chance to reflect, I have substantially revised the draft to focus on independent, reliable secondary sources and to remove CV-style and promotional content.

Notability rationale (WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG):

This latest submission is based on sustained, independent coverage of my work outside academia in national media outlets with editorial oversight. I have been featured or cited as a marketing and consumer behavior expert in multiple independent secondary sources, including Global Finance, Observer, and Baltimore Sun. These sources are not affiliated with me or my employer and discuss my expertise in contexts unrelated to institutional promotion.

The draft intentionally excludes CV-style detail. Wherever possible, it mitigates the use of internal university sources, and podcasts. Instead it focuses only on verifiable third-party coverage. In its present form, I believe the article meets WP:ANYBIO through significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, satisfying WP:GNG.

I am grateful for your counsel. As instructed, I have inserted the COI declaration to my own user talk page to be totally transparent. I have also provided a brief explanation as to why I chose this course of action.

These days, I am sure that you are swamped with submissions. Yet, whenever you get a chance, I would greatly appreciate a reassessment. Once again, thank you. Anjou Le Roi (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anjou Le Roi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page because it will make communicating much more efficient (and you would receive automatic notifications when editors write to you, like in this case).

Regrading COI: I am not seeing a declaration (with explanation) anywhere? Not on your Talk page, nor the draft or draft's Talk page...? However, it seems evident from your comment above that you are the subject, in which case I should advise you to please peruse WP:AUTOBIO.

My advice would be to start there: create a User page; declare your COI and include an explanation; peruse WP:AUTOBIO. Once you have done so, you may be inspired to create further amendments to the draft, and/or clarify specific criteria you feel the draft meets, which I would be happy to assess and progress. A COI does not mean a draft cannot meet the relevant criteria, rather that the bar is set higher.

Again, I'd be happy to discuss and progress it with you. Cabrils (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Cabrils,

Good afternoon. I greatly appreciate your time and guidance in this matter. As instructed, I have just created a User page and declared my COI with a brief explanation. Thanks to you, I now understand that I must met a higher bar to be published in Wikipedia. I happily accept this challenge.

Take care.

Anjou Le Roi Anjou Le Roi (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anjou Le Roi,

Great, I look forward to positive amendments. Cabrils (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Cabrils,

Good morning. Hope you are doing well as most of us are still dealing with snowmageddon. I felt compelled to get your feedback in that my latest draft was not accepted by CostalCal. In this ruling, CostalCal stated rather succinctly: Henry C. Boyd III isn't really notable. I would accept this if he were more notable.

For my most recent submission, I tried to pare down the length of the draft to give it more of an encyclopedic tone. Compared to past submissions, I can certainly beef up various sections to underscore my notability as a public intellectual, if this warranted. At this point, I would greatly appreciate your second opinion on this matter. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Anjou Le Roi (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Anjou Le Roi,

This will be disappointing news for you no doubt, but I agree with @CostalCal.

To give the draft the best chance of success, as I wrote in my original comment on the draft:

"It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX")."

"Beefing up" sections is missing the point: the draft needs to establish notability, as defined, which can be done in one sentence when supported by reliable sources. I would encourage you to do as I advised (in my comment and here above) because that exercise will address the nub of the issue. And again, I encourage you to peruse, not just scan, all the links I included in my comment, especially WP:NPROF, WP:RS and WP:ROTM.

I can understand that you may feel disappointed, but there is a reality that some subjects simply are not notable (or sufficiently notable) to meet the relevant criteria. This can be especially so in circumstances of WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO etc.

I trust this helps. Cabrils (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Cabrils,

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your prompt and insightful feedback. I wanted to follow up on your earlier guidance regarding this draft. I have revised the article to focus narrowly on notability and have identified the WP:THREE sources on the draft’s talk page, along with the specific criterion relied upon (WP:ANYBIO). CV-style content and non-qualifying sources have been removed.

Of note, the crux of my argument in terms of notability rests upon these three noteworthy sources:

• Global Finance (July 17, 2024), which cites the subject’s academic expertise in an in-depth analysis of the financial viability of the Olympic Games. [Citation #11]

• USA Today (November 2021), which includes expert commentary by the subject in national coverage examining consumer behavior and branding strategy. [Citation #12]

• Slate (September 2024), which references the subject’s expertise in long-form analysis of consumer culture and market behavior. [Citation #13]

If you have time to reassess, I would appreciate your feedback on whether the revised approach addresses the notability concerns you raised. Thank you again for your detailed and constructive comments. Anjou Le Roi (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils - thanks for taking the time to review the draft. I've left a note on the Talk page listing the WP:THREE best sources per your guidance and wanted to provide you with them here as well:

• Newsweek
• Los Angeles Business Journal
• New York Business Journal .

Thanks again for your time and efforts. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Brucemyboy1212, thanks for the ping. You'll be pleased to see my positive reply on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils, Thanks for the recent notes about my article on playwright Gabriel Jason Dean. This is my first article and I am working to better understand what constitutes enough good sources versus blogs, etc. I'm hoping to write more articles about contemporary playwrights writing in English. I have seen blogs be quoted directly in other writers' pages, which is why I did it here. I have also included a lot of reputable sources including the Guardian, New York Times, Playbill, Austin Chronicle, etc in the current article. I have more reviews and interviews that I could source, so maybe I should just do that? They are from places like Atlanta Journal COnstitution, Howlround, etc. If you have any specific advice on which sources make the subject seem not notable enough, please let me know. Also, if you have any specific feedback about where the article feels more like an essay or promotional, that would be extremely helpful. I'm a journalism student and tried to stay as objective as possible.

Thanks for any further guidance you can offer! THRGuru1115 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a lot of edits based on your suggestions. I hope this helps move it forward and I welcome your further feedback. THRGuru1115 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I've answered on the talk page.WhaleFarm (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @WhaleFarm, please see my reply on the draft's Talk page. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils. Happy New Year! I hope you are doing well. I submitted this draft. It was rejected by another reviewer for the same reasons you declined Draft:Eric E. Mamajek. I fixed it like Eric Mamajek's article and dropped a message to the reviewing editor. However, I think they do not wish look at it again. Would you be willing to take a look at it? Thank you. HRShami (talk) HRShami (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for your helpful feedback at Draft talk:Richard S. Isaacson! I've responded to you there, if you're able to revisit the draft. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Inkian Jason, thanks for the ping. You'll be pleased to see my positive reply on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason, Draft accepted into main space. Cabrils (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on the draft review. I appreciate your very thorough and fair assessment. I realize the article would benefit from an infobox so I've left a request on the Talk page. I wanted to courtesy ping you since you've been so involved. Thanks again for your time! Talk:Richard Taite (businessman)#Infobox Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Brucemyboy1212,

Your efforts to be, and to been seen to be, mindful of COI in your editing and suggested efforts is appreciated.

On this one, in the circumstances, an info box feels WP:PROMO to me.

Having said that, views may differ, so it's good that you've posted this on the article's Talk page, and tagging me there is perfect so I get notified.

Let's see what others think. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the draft article about Space Machines Company. I have stated my case for why I feel the company is notable and provided three strong examples of coverage, in the talk section of the draft page. I look forward to your response (when you have time, please do not feel obliged to rush!). Kind regards, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adzwithaz ~2025-39893-07 (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-39893-07, please see my reply on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils, I was eliminating a source of false information. When Jeanette MacDonald's husband Gene Raymond was still alive, a false biography was published in 1994 by Sharon Rich "Sweethearts". He was advised not to sue her because it would create unnecessary attention. I had conversations from the ONLY MacDonald appointed president of her fan club, that this book was fiction and only created to sell books and expensive fan club memberships. I am trying to clean up false information and preserve the truth of this wonderful woman's life. Rich's book depicts her life as sad and deceptive. MacDonald was anything but that. She died from the effects of rheumatic fever (as seen on her death certificate) and could not conceive children because of it(as she and Raymond did not have any of their own). If you are okay with unauthorized biographies (Sharon Rich couldn't have spoken to Jeanette's sister as she claims because a stroke affected her speech), then I apologize for my efforts. I will not add any of my own content as the other reliable sources listed have already spoken well enough for her-- Hollywood Diva, Edward Baron Turk (1998); The Jeanette MacDonald Story,James Robert Parish (1976);and The Films of Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, Phillip Castanza (1978) . Thank you. MyrnaRM (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MyrnaRM, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page as it will make communicating much for efficient and ensure you don't miss notifications, like to my reply here.

What you've said may be true, and that's all fine, however, as you may know, content on Wikipedia is governed by an agreed set of criteria: Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.

In this instance, if there is content on the page that is sourced from a "reliable source" (as defined), it should really not be removed, and certainly not prior to a discussion on the Talk page, and requires reasoning that itself is supported by reliable source/s. Because MacDonald is not living, the page is not covered by WP:BLP (which includes principles like not including content that could be defamatory).

The points you raise seem to be WP:OR.

A more acceptable approach could be to add the content you raise above, assuming it can be sourced from a reliable source, does not constitute WP:OR and is mindful of WP:COI. It is normal practice to include counter-points, presented in a neutral manner. You could draft something and post it in the Talk page, which would be considered constructive and inclusive.

I should also say that if the existing content is based on sources that have been shown to to unreliable, unsourced, untrue etc, then it can potentially be removed, but best practice would be to include verifiable reasoning in a post on the Talk page.

I note what I've said would apply to your recently reverted edits on Nelson Eddy.

I trust this helps? Feel free to ask more questions if needed. Cabrils (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Created the user page, thank you. The wikipedia pages of MacDonald and Eddy already contain information from reliable sources that I've mentioned in previous chat. I don't have anything to add to their information, but I'll have to give some thought to counterpoints I could present on the fictional information. Thank you for your guidance. If Jeanette were alive, she'd appreciate my efforts but tell me to concentrate on my own life. MyrnaRM (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Good one. The WP:TEAROOM is a great resource for help too. Generally if what you're trying to do is sincere, there should be a way to do it that meets relevant requirements. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils - thanks for weighing in on the addition of an infobox. Would you mind sharing feedback as to why adding an infobox to the article feels promotional? I suggested adding a concise summary of the main facts established in the article per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. But if something looks off to you, I'd like to fix it. Thanks again for your time on this. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Brucemyboy1212 please see my reply on the draft's Talk page, where any further discussion should occur please Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils,

Thanks again for your previous feedback on Draft:Tanner James. I’ve recently made substantial changes based on your and other reviewers’ comments:

• Rewritten content for a more neutral tone
• Properly restored all previous AFC decline templates
• Removed unreliable sources (e.g., YouTube)
• Replaced with stronger independent, reliable sources with significant coverage including:
  • Beatroute Magazine (Oct 2017 feature on his book I Am The Lizard King)
  • WestWord (Writers' Guild of Alberta, 2018 profile)
  • Taber Times (Feb & Mar 2024 film and performance features)

I believe the article now meets the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO standards.

Would you be willing to take another look?

Thanks so much for your time and guidance.

—[[User:CanadianLit]] CanadianLit (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the draft's Talk page, where any further discussion should occur please. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils,

Thank you again for your previous review and detailed feedback on Draft:Tanner James. I wanted to let you know that I’ve now:

• Added a formal Conflict of Interest declaration on my User Talk page,
• Updated the draft with stronger independent, reliable sources (including Beatroute Magazine, WestWord, Taber Times),
• Preserved all AFC templates and decline notices per your guidance,
• Removed low-quality or promotional sources, and
• Focused the tone toward a more encyclopedic and neutral presentation.

If you're willing to take another look, I would really appreciate your feedback or reconsideration for acceptance.

Thanks again for your time and support.

— User:CanadianLit CanadianLit (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, please see my reply on the draft's Talk page, where further discussion should occur please. Cabrils (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Cabrils — I’ve revised Draft:Iain Cameron to focus on independent secondary sources demonstrating notability (per WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO), and have listed the WP:THREE best sources on the draft talk page. I’ve also added a COI disclosure on my user talk page. Many thanks for your time if you’re able to reassess. Ronofcam10 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ronofcam10,

You'll be pleased to see my positive response on the Draft talk:Iain Cameron page. As I explain there, if you care to re-submit the draft, please notify me here, and I would be happy to accept it into mainspace. Cabrils (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I have resubmitted the draft as required. Thank you for your assistance, it's greatly appreciated. Ronofcam10 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive and constructive revisions, good editing.

After a bit of confusion I needed to rename the page Iain Cameron (snow researcher), and have accepted it into mainspace.

I would encourage you to create a User Page as it will make communicating much for efficient and ensure you don't miss notifications, like to my reply here.

All the best, Cabrils (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to inform you that a page you created, Kyle Hill (YouTuber), is unfortunately deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hill (YouTuber).

Cordially Toarin Toarin (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, I read the log wrong. You reviewed the article, not created it. Apologies for my mistake. Toarin (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils, thank you for the thoughtful review and encouragement in December. I've revised the draft and wanted to flag the key changes: Reduced references per statement to comply with WP:CITEKILL (max 3 per claim). Removed promotional language and toned down WP:PEACOCK phrasing throughout. Removed the "Personal life" section, which read too much like WP:PROMO. Replaced or reduced reliance on primary/non-independent sources with independent media coverage (Forbes, Reuters, The Guardian, Financial Times, Irish Times, Sunday Times, Electronic Engineering Times, etc.). Restructured the lead for encyclopaedic neutrality. On the draft's talk page, I've identified the WP:THREE best independent secondary sources and explained with specificity why I believe the draft meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 and WP:GNG. I'd be grateful if you could reassess when you have a chance. IrishIndependentIE (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear Cabrils, I hope you are well. I am writing to kindly ask if you would be willing to take a look at Draft:Thích Trung Hiếu when you have time. The draft concerns a Vietnamese Buddhist monk and abbot of Phổ Lại Pagoda. I have made efforts to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. Most claims are supported by independent Vietnamese media sources, published literary references, and official decisions of the Vietnam Buddhist Sangha. If there are any concerns regarding notability, sourcing, tone, or structure, I would sincerely appreciate your guidance so that I can improve the draft accordingly. Thank you very much for your time and for your work reviewing drafts. Best regards, Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nguyenngocthanhtoan,

Thanks for the ping, and kind words.

I would be pleased to review the draft, however because the sources are exclusively in Vietnamese (except one, in Spanish), I don't feel comfortable assessing them. This is particularly so in circumstances where the author, you, has a declared conflict of interest (thank you for declaring this).

No doubt there will be other reviewers who would be content to review the draft so I encourage you to be patient as it's in the list now of pages awaiting review, so it will be seen to in due course. All the best with your editing. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Cabrils very much for your thoughtful reply and for taking the time to respond. I completely understand your concern regarding the language of the sources. I appreciate your encouragement and will patiently await further review.

Best regards, Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I expanded the article for United High School (Ohio) with some relevant content and wondered if that might be enough to convince you regardong Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United High School (Ohio). Thanks for your possible reconsideration. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Alansohn I see you have since posted on the deletion discussion page, which is the best place to discuss the deletion nomination. Cabrils (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I deleted a paragraph from the Born Sexy Yesterday page because the sources provided were flimsy and did not back up the claims being made in the paragraph. It was regarding the paragraph on the relationship between Eleven and Mike Wheeler on Stranger Things. The source provided did not actually explain why Mike and Eleven were a depiction of the trope, and the paragraph stated that “film critics”(plural) criticized them for being a Born Sexy Yesterday trope, but only linked the aforementioned article. Considering Mike and Eleven were both child characters portrayed by child actors, I think having them as an example of an inherently sexual trope is problematic. The change I made was reverted, and I admit I am unfamiliar with the editing rules of Wikipedia so i probably did not follow editing protocol, but I would like to discuss it further. Best regards, Katydid568 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. Whilst Wikipedia is open source, in that anyone can contribute and make edits, it is governed by policies that have been developed by consensus over many years. Unfortunately I am not in a good position to cover the vastness of them, but I would encourage you to make your own inquiries starting at least with WP:HOW. Discussions about the specific content of pages is best had on the Talk page of the subject, in this case at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Born_Sexy_Yesterday. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)