User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 20

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

I am new to Wikipedia, and I am working on improving the Interactive Disassembler (IDA) page. On the talk page, another user posted their research into the history of the IDA logo. They included some citations about the history of IDA's development which I think could be useful in the main article. I had a few questions about including these citations, though:

1. The page currently has the tag "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral." Some of the sources I would like to include from that talk page post are interviews with the original author of IDA Ilfak Guilfanov, and publications by him^[1][2][3], which I would like to use as sources for the timeline of IDA development. Is using these sources from Guilfanov acceptable if I just want to establish a year or date when he began to work on a certain part of IDA, or is it better to find independent sources for this?
2. One of the citations, regarding the claim that began working on IDA in 1991, is to a Russian-language interview with Guilfanov.^[4] The user who posted the citation also included the relevant quote from Guilfanov ("Он начался как хобби в далеком 1991 году, просто увлечением для себя и для друзей"). When looking at a machine translation of the quote this seems to support the claim, but I do not know any Russian. On Wikipedia, what is the best way to verify foreign-language citations?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Wysholp (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Wysholp: thanks for stopping by my talk page, and welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia editing! :)

Sources that are close to the subject can be used to verify simple facts and other non-contentious matters. For example, if a company says on their website that they are based in Singapore, and their CEO is Jane Lee, you can use the website as a source for both claims. If they say they invented the printed circuit board, you definitely need to get that corroborated by reliable independent sources. Similarly, in your case, if you're using close sources to support something that nobody would have any reason to dispute, then that's fine, but anything contentious should really be backed up by an independent source.

If you don't speak the language in question, then machine translation is probably your best friend. If you need something more than that, then you could try asking eg. at a relevant WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia, or else look for an editor who knows Russian (and, possibly, is offering to translate or proofread) by going to Category:Wikipedians by language.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much @DoubleGrazing, that is really helpful. I will continue on my editing adventures :) Wysholp (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello thank you for being my mentor, I am actually here on a school project in Catalonia, Spain. We are supposed to translate wikipedia pages into Catalan for "feminism". --Divadusthegreat (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Divadusthegreat: cool, that sounds like a worthwhile project. Just remember to follow the Wikipedia rules on translation, eg. WP:HOWTRANS or the Catalan equivalent guideline. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic thank you for the guidelines. 83.51.38.5 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've deleted this per WP:G6 so your AfC review can be completed. I notice you've previously declined the draft, so wasn't sure what you wanted to do with this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ritchie333. Yes, I had declined this draft earlier, but the creator addressed the notability issue and I think this can now be accepted (unless you feel otherwise, in which case let me know). Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks okay to pass AfC. There are some issues, like citing Find a Grave (that's more an issue for living people than long deceased), but those are not showstoppers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

what is the issues George alexandar A (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to publish about myself on Wikipedia. I am a writer.And an author. --Oviul maruf (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Oviul maruf: I'm sorry, but for the many reasons why that's a really bad idea, see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:ABOUTME. In short, please don't do it.

If you are going to do it anyway, then you must declare a conflict of interest (WP:COI), and you cannot publish the article directly, you have to go through the WP:AfC review process.

But as I said, it would be much better if you didn't. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

how i publish about myself.

Please help me. Oviul maruf (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't, that's what I'm saying. If you're notable enough, someone will write about you one day.

And to help you figure out if you are notable enough, you may take a look at the notability guideline for writers, at WP:AUTHOR. Which of the criteria 1–4 do you meet, and what evidence is there to support this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I thank you for reviewing my draft page.

It appears you had some issue regarding the authenticity and even access to sources cited below. I wish to argue my case for my source.

These all are part of the same series of articles by Dr. Nigel Lambert (an amateur historian admittingly) regarding his detailed research of the Confederate OOB for the Battle of Hatcher's Run. While a bit amateurish, he has quite a deep bibliography and extensive citations throughout the articles.

As for access, that has been an odd occurrence I've experienced around the same time as well. All I will say on the matter is that I've never had issues with this website and these pages before last night, and it appears the situation has improved (though the loading times are slow). I presume it's something regarding the webhost. Not sure. Not my field of expertise.

As for needing more sources, I could provide more, though these would be citing the same sources Lambert already cites thoroughly in these articles.

I am working on further editing the page, adding footnotes to relevant sections. Hopefully when I resubmit the next draft, it will be more to your approval.

Link to Draft: Draft:Hatcher's Run Confederate Order of Battle ThoughtfulPug (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We will gather information from different website. If I gather information from website you call it a copyright and if I write a article base on what I has see in the school and places then you will Call it as No proof verification. What I will do now. Atlas don't delete it. Make it draft and when you get time you edit it. It is a famous School in Kolkata, indiaAt least not to delete my Draft:Hartley Higher Secondary School. You can make changes and the is a popular school in Kolkata, India 🇮🇳 Hartley High School (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)The vision of the School is to energise and enhance childhood by fostering growth of mind body and spirit.Our mission is to provide quality education in partnership with the parents so that each pupil is able to reach to their full potential and we ensure that all students of all ability levels become well equipped to meet the challenges of education, work and life. Hartley High School (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

• New bundle partners:
  • Newspapers.com
  • Fold3
• 1Lib1Ref January report
• Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. You dismissed my draft because there were no reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fray_Leon_de_San_Jose

I read your warning and don't intend to get you to review my draft again. I just wanted to ask you something, since I'm kind of new in creating articles and get easily confused by things I don't understand well.

I read all about reliable sources in Wikipedia help, and I think the sources I use are most reliable (including documents from that century). I really wouldn't know how to prove my information with better documents than that. But since my article is about a Spanish historical character and there's hardly anything about him in English (except for some rough mentions), I wonder if "no reliable sources" could mean "no reliable sources because I understand no Spanish so I can't check them".

I make this question because I just created another article about a Roman Temple, using even a source from a Spanish government research paper, and someone else rejected it for the same reason. Nevertheless, the Spanish version for both articles was approved no problem. That's why I wonder if the problem is the language or the source, because if the problem is the language then there's nothing I can do about it, reliable sources are in Spanish and not in English.

You also wrote: "Far too much of the content is unreferenced, and some of what look like references are actually more like explanatory notes." I took care of the explanatory notes so I think that part is fine now. As for the "too much unreferenced content" maybe means you do acknowledge the sources but expect many more references to every piece of information. The problem is that all this historical information is based on an official compilation of historical documents, plus some local data collected by the local historian E.C., and they are both Spanish sources which won't help much to English readers. So I decided to create a "external links" section to publish both Spanish sources, plus an English version of a paper published by the local City Council, so they can find extended information full of all kinds of references there. But also they have the two original Spanish sources to prove the information. I started inserting references to every important detail, but saw I was creating a long list of references, most of them pointing to the original compilation, so it was the same book and often even the same page, so the result looked pointles. That's why I created that section offering the compilation and pointing to the 3 chapters where they can find all the information.

So, if my sources were reliable, the problem is that I should rather insert lots of references even if they all point again and again to the same book? I think that wouldn't be helpful, but I don't trust my opinion here, since I'm not a savvy in Wikipedia and I want to learn what course of action is considered the correct way in Wikipedia, so I can correct this article and also keep it in mind for the future too.

By the way, thanks for checking my article out in the first place.

Wikichap33 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

can you please help me in publishing this page I just need people to know left and right both side of politics for that knowing about this person is a plus point, if you can help in publishing this page it would be great help for me, Thanks! Badassbrahmana (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ReCreate this page/draft Aatt1-0 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Recreating is terrible advice. @DoubleGrazing: Draft:Sandeep Singh (political ideologist) is a duplicate topic of Draft:Sandeep Singh (political advisor), but with different editors. I'm not familiar with the details of the AFC process for dealing with this so your advice on this would be appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, @Whpq; I hadn't spotted the earlier draft. I'll change my decline basis now, cross-link the drafts, and generally keep an eye on them. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Badassbrahmana: sorry, but I can't help you publish an article on a non-notable subject. Either this person is notable, in which case the sources need to evidence this, or they're not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know why my draft page was declined? Go to my draftAatt1-0 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aatt1-0: the reasons for declining are contained within the grey box inside the pink one on the draft page (or the yellow one, on your user talk page). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw that (long) offer to pay an editor to write an article for the "prominent Indian politician" at AFCHelp. I thought deleting the whole thing was the way to go, and I almost did it myself... Your edit summary "uhh.... no" was spot on. David10244 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@David10244: yeah; "you get to meet all sorts in this line of work", as Dire Straits famously put it. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that particular song. Ons of the great guitarists of all time. David10244 (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Verily, Sir; verily. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to educate the editor but I have failed. Thank you for your help in doing so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I just wrote a page in my sandbox and hit "publish." Is it now live for the world to see? Or is it just saved in the sandbox? --Julcoarchival (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Julcoarchival: I guess you mean this User:Julcoarchival/sandbox? That's just in your sandbox. Any page that starts with User: (or Draft: ) is not published in the encyclopaedia. The 'publish page' button is a bit misleading in that sense, what it really means is 'save'. If you want to submit your page for pre-publication review at the AfC (Articles for Creation) workshop, let me know. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No that was a mistake. Nocturnal781 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 Online events: New: Gender studies | Health | Dance | Alphabet run S & T | Books by women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | See also: Women in Red is supporting Every Book Its Reader through our Books by women event. Tip of the month: When writing about a book, check WP:NBOOK for notability, then see MOS:NOVEL, WP:NONFICTION or WP:POETRYSTANDARDS for guidance. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi there,

You declined the submission of my first article. I'm hoping to understand why more clearly.

I modeled the article after those listed under the Category "Law firms based in Seattle." Eight are listed. The Hagens Berman referenced Steve Berman. Which referenced Betts Patterson & Mines, a well known Seattle firm. That lacked a page, so I wrote about that — using the other firms' accepted entries as guides.

I'm not seeing a relevant difference between the cited sources' "notability" used on those entries in comparison to my draft.

Are you wanting to see more newspaper type coverage on various topics relating to the particular firm? Or specific cases? Like the $7.5M treasure hunter case? Some of those seemed to lose the neutrality aspect of the Wiki entry so I kept it out. Although perhaps that was misguided on my part.

Thanks. Karuna425 (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Karuna425: I declined your draft because the sources cited are all primary (with the possible exception of the CityBiz piece, but that's just a routine appointment announcement), and as such do not count towards establishing notability per WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that was a fun result. We edit conflicted but only sort of. Star Mississippi 15:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for moving into main space. I guess there is no coincidence that the move happened so quickly after I improved the draft. It had been sitting for months until recently. So I'm curious what happens behind the scenes? Do the AFC team have some list of "recently edited older submissions"? Can we speed submissions up by editing them? Or was it just good luck that you approved it so sooner after I improved it? CT55555(talk) 17:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @CT55555 :) Actually, it was pretty much just a coincidence. I was browsing the older end of the drafts pool, looking for something I could accept rather than always having to decline or reject (which is kind of demotivating, TBH), and came across this. So no, I don't think you can hurry things along by editing them, although I'm of course happy you did edit this one, as that probably made it possible for me to accept it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is a nice little moment on the internet. :-)

If I run out of things to do, I'll look at the older drafts and see if any others could do with a boost. CT55555(talk) 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555 please do! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Dmitry Torner, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, @Ivanvector. Are you saying the content is not identical enough to the version deleted following this AfD, or is there some other reason why this doesn't qualify for G4? Just trying to understand where I got it wrong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I wrote a note in the draft. The first deletion discussion was a soft delete, which is automatically eligible for recreation. The second deletion discussion didn't give any reasons for deletion but only resulted in deletion referencing the first discussion, which wasn't a valid rationale given that it was a soft delete. It's therefore not eligible for G4 now. I also didn't think the draft quite met the threshold of unambiguous promotion to qualify for G11 deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: oh okay, understood. Thanks! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing:, Given that you are both an AfC reviewer and have some knowledge of Swedish, I just wanted to ask if you by any chance would have time to look into any of my three pending Sweden-related drafts? I'd be happy to answer any questions, your input would be appreciated. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you recently moved my draft from my userspace to main for submission, but it's really not ready. Can you move it back? T8612 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @T8612: sorry, why should it be moved back? The Draft namespace is the preferred location for pending drafts. I mean, I can move it back, it's just not clear to me why.

Besides, if it isn't ready, perhaps you should ask Bompanigcc why they submitted it for review? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Because I don't think I will complete it within six months. No idea why Bompanigcc submitted it. T8612 (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@T8612: okay, it's now back at User:T8612/Spartan coinage. I've also reverted the last few edits incl. the AfC ones, which restores it to how it was at your last edit in December.

Note, though, that while user space drafts have a longer shelf life than in draft space, they do eventually go stale also. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. T8612 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I am still trying to publish the article on conductor George Jackson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Jackson_(conductor)

This has been declined for autobiographical reasons, although I am not the subject of the article! I have added several further newspaper sources, but would appreciate some guidance.

Can you help with resubmitting and tidying up? Thank you! Jacksogh1987 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there @DoubleGrazingDoubleGrazing! I have added a few further articles within the text to help establish notability (see revisions). Conductor Jack (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing! You declined the draft page I was creating about "Maesteg House". I read your comment about reliable sources and that is absolutely fair. Though before I edit further I'd like to ask some questions, as I am new to wikipedia editing and don't want to waste time resubmitting articles with more problems.

Is it possible to have a wikipedia page at all if the available sources are very limited on the topic? As I know that there aren't an awful lot of sources about Maesteg House out there, and they mostly mention the House in relation to other topics. If there is limited information is it possible just to make a very small page that simply mention's the house's existence and a couple minor facts about it? Or would it be better to have no page at all?

Also, what about a source like this? - https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Copperopolis_Landscapes_of_the_Early_Ind/oXjppt5BYjEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=maesteg+house+swansea&pg=PA228&printsec=frontcover. This seems like a reliable source, and the House and its estate is talked about across most of a one page in the book. Would this be appropriate to use? Otherwise I am starting to run out of appropriate sources I think.

Either way, thanks for the help! OGBunnnyman (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OGBunnnyman: the fundamental requirement for any topic to be included in the encyclopaedia is that it is notable as Wikipedia understands that term, meaning that there has been significant coverage of the topic in multiple published sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. This requirement applies to short articles as well as long ones. So the simple answer is, if such sources cannot be found, then it isn't possible to create an article on the subject.

Note that sources don't need to be online, nor do they need to be in English, as long as they otherwise meet the required standard.

The book you've linked to does seem pretty good; perhaps not entirely independent, but pretty close at least, so I would certainly add that to the mix. That gives us two useful sources... can you find at least one more? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply @DoubleGrazing.

I'm not sure I quite understand how sources which are offline could be used, as is a source is offline how can it be verified to be real/true by people such as yourself checking over the article? I think it is likely I can find a source or two in offline archives stored locally. OGBunnnyman (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@OGBunnnyman: see WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing such sources (it's an essay, not official policy, but useful nevertheless). Basically, you need to provide sufficient information (author, title, edition, page numbers, etc.) to enable anyone to seek out the publication and find the relevant passage.

Such sources still need to be published, ie. be accessible by members of public; private correspondence, company archives, etc. aren't acceptable. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again @DoubleGrazing, Hm okay sounds good. I'll see if I can do further online research to find any more appropriate sources, perhaps enough to publish the draft article. And if not I'll see what offline sources I can find in the local public archives when I'm next in the area. I appreciate your patience with me, I think I'm all good now :) OGBunnnyman (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@OGBunnnyman: no worries, happy to help. If you do find more sources, you're welcome to ping me or drop by here, and I'm happy to take another look.

Another thing I meant to say is, if the building was listed or otherwise had official heritage status (which it probably didn't, given that it was demolished!) it could meet the special WP:NBUILD notability standard for buildings. Long shot, but worth mentioning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey upon further research I have resubmitted the draft article. After replacing the old sources with new more reliable ones I believe there's now adequate evidence for the page to be published. I could be wrong though, and in which case the article will have to stay as a draft until I get a chance to visit public archives. Sadly didn't find any evidence of the building having a heritage status, but like you said it was a long shot! If you find any time I'd appreciate giving it a look over. Thanks again @DoubleGrazing OGBunnnyman (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@OGBunnnyman: I've had a quick look, and it might be okay. Some of the sources don't strictly speaking meet the GNG standard, but at least there are several of them, so that taken as a whole it doesn't fall considerably short, either. My job at AfC is to figure out whether the draft has better than 50:50 chance of surviving a hypothetical AfD deletion discussion, and I'd say this does. On that basis, I'm happy enough to wave it through, but if a new page patroller (and I think I shouldn't patrol it myself, so as to get a second opinion) feels otherwise, then they may either send it back to drafts, or worse, send it to AfD. Do you want me to accept it now, or would you rather wait until you've had a chance to look for additional sources. (FYI, drafts can be kept for six months before they become automatically eligible for deletion, so you have plenty of time.) Let me know? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I'd be happy for you to wave the article through. I'm not exactly sure how it all works but I'll save into my notepad the source edit code into a notepad file for safekeeping. Worse comes to worst I can always just reupload it with references to physical sources I've found later on. OGBunnnyman (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I think now it's ok with your suggestion. Please give me a feedback. CapitainAfrika (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)