User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 54

You probably know this, but even attribution wouldn't fix all the broken citations and templates or stop them creating duplicate articles. There's a huge CIR problem here I believe. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

There is an active, and somewhat lengthy, discussion with an editor regarding their draft, currently the most recent thread. I think it would benefit form fresh eyes. I may have become tunnel visioned in it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I fear they cannot hear me. Perhaps they can hear you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, DoubleGrazing! I wanted to share concerns about the editor behind a draft that you declined, and also interacted with at this teahouse thread. Looks like a reactivated sockfarm sleeper based on editing patterns. After being prompted they've made the required paid disclosure for ISDN, but maintain no COI for the previous article that they worked on. While it seems to have escaped detection at the time, that article (heavily promotional before cleanup) was pretty much entirely written by a group of SPAs – including two accounts with "tallship" in the username – consistent with this user claiming topic area interest, which I believe is feigned (reasoning here). This editor has in the past dropped a telltale "we" when requesting undeletion of an article known to be by a marketing company. Only other visible edit was inserting company URLs; deleted contribs might reveal more? In this context, it seems like they're gaming the system to see if it's possible to salvage this one article that got caught by patrollers and sent to AFC. Also, more likely to be actually a member of the marketing company than an employee of ISDN as they claim = bad faith paid disclosure. Cheers, 2406:3003:2007:1F3:6DA5:6902:CCB3:DA37 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

bro yadav editors are always doing fake edits in the yadavs of nepal article they even remove sourced data and do manipulated edits there you should add full protection to that page... please do that they are doing fake edits there. Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bhaskar sunsari: I have told you already, I am not your brother, so please do not address me as such.

No one has requested that I protect that page (whatever page it may be, exactly), that I'm aware of at least, hence why I haven't protected it. If you wish to request protection, you can do so at WP:RFPP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I notice that you recently left a notice on another's talk page using {{uw-coi}}. That template include a link to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

You then told that user "You need to make your paid-editing-disclosure by placing the {{paid}} template, appropriately filled in, on your userpage"

However, if you read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose, it says "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries. Disclosure on user pages may be done using the {{paid}} template..."

So {{Paid}} is not required, and neither is placing the disclosure on the user page.

I mention this so that you can avoid giving incorrect advice in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I wouldn't exactly call it "incorrect advice". The user made a disclosure in a comment on their talk page, where nobody would know to look for it, and I was just making the point that they need to make it on their userpage instead, where the disclosure can be more easily found.

But yes, you're right, I neglected to mention that they could alternatively do this by using the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template on the draft talk page, so in that respect I guess I'm guilty as charged. Thank you so much for pointing this out. I will strive to do better in the future. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | August 2025, Vol 11, Issue 8, Nos. 326, 327, 344, 345, 346 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Indigenous women | Film and stage Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian 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 and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

{{AFC submission|d|reason=I respectfully request reconsideration of this draft article. The subject, '''Hamza Asif Khan''', is the elected Tehsil Chairman (Mayor) of Shabqadar Tehsil in Charsadda District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He holds a public office representing a population of over 400,000 people and was elected during the 2021 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Elections.}}

Dear reviewing editor,

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft submission. I understand the concerns raised regarding notability and sourcing. However, I believe the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for politicians based on the following points:

• The subject is a formally elected public official in a local government administrative unit (Tehsil Chairman).
• Multiple **reliable, independent national sources** cover him by name, including:
  • Geo News – election results listing Hamza Asif Khan as winner
  • ElectionPakistani.com – vote count and candidate breakdown
  • Dunya News – summary of results by Tehsil with his name
  • The Express Tribune – performance of JUI-F including his constituency
  • Dawn – coverage of a protest where Hamza Asif Khan, as Tehsil Chairman, demanded release of local funds

These references offer more than passing mention and highlight both his **electoral success** and **administrative role**.

I kindly ask that the draft be reconsidered in light of these sources and the subject’s clear public position. If additional improvements or citations are needed, I am more than willing to revise the article accordingly.

Thank you again for your guidance and your valuable volunteer work.

Z199AK (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Hamza Asif Khan

@Z199AK: local politicians are not automatically notable, they need to establish notability via the general notability guideline WP:GNG. This requires significant coverage, directly of them (and not eg. of their party) in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. Routine reporting of election results is not enough, otherwise virtually every political candidate who ever ran for anything would be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi There,

We have provided a notable recource link in the leader newspaper article about the rec club. I was also editing the page before it wswa reviwed. Would you mind reviewing again?

https://www.theleader.com.au/story/8669471/maddy-proud-hosts-one-day-netball-camp-in-miranda/ Indoorsports (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Indoorsports (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Rec Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi There, I was making some edits and cleaning up the page. Would you be able to review and see what you think now?

Indoorsports (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Indoorsports: I think the same as I thought when I reviewed this, ie. that there is no evidence of notability, and the draft is very insufficiently referenced. This reads like the subject telling the world about itself. (Speaking of which, do you have some sort relationship with this organisation?)

Wikipedia articles should almost exclusively be written by summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources as references against the information they have provided. The process is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE, and the notability guideline you need to meet is WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

Hello, @DoubleGrazing.... Please fix double redirects in redirect pages User:Gonzo fan2007-Alternate, User:Alexeyperlov/status and User:Alexeyperlov/Status because WP:2REDIR... Thanks..... 223.255.224.104 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I tried to submit a draft for review, but when I submitted it, the draft appeared completely blank. I’m not sure why this happened. I have some experience editing on Wikipedia and even created multiple articles, but I may be missing something about the submission process.

Could you please explain what might cause a submitted draft to appear blank, and how I can fix it so that the content is properly saved and submitted? Majid8097 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Majid8097: you had blanked the draft yourself before submitting it. I've no idea why you did that, but that would explain why it "appeared blank". Now that you've sorted that out and resubmitted, I assume there's no longer an issue? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I have intentionally blanked it, don't you see you even said "Though the text is there the draft is blank" something similar. Yes now I have resubmitted but I think it has minor errors, can you help find out and I'll fix it myself? Majid8097 (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, intentionally or not, you did blank it in this edit: Special:Diff/1304963886. And then, a few minutes later, you submitted the blank page.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're asking me to look for errors in your draft, if you already know they are there... presumably you also therefore know what they are? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that and I repeat, even if it was blanked it wasn't intentional. I'm asking you that because I'm simply seeking help from a better experienced Wikipedian. Majid8097 (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't wish to get involved in editing this draft, as I've no interest in the subject. If you have specific questions, you can ask those, either here or at the Teahouse (or, if they are specific to the AfC review process, at the AfC help desk). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked a couple of AI engines to write me an apology for edit warring on wikipedia. It's amazing how similar those LLM generated texts looked like what have been posted. I'm not going to AGF here because that's not somebody who is sorry at all. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing please take another look at those unblock requests - the two aren't identical... although they start and end the same, they are different within (where have I heard that before...) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430: what a mess that whole page is...

I'm going to stay out of it. I've reviewed one of their appeals already anyway, now I'm just getting in the way. (Should have realised that sooner!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The Sir Jimmie Rodgers page was recently moved to articlespace, despite it having previously been rejected, with no major changes before having been moved. Posting here since I am not sure what to do about it, and since you originally declined the draft. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs: there's not much that can be done, given that AfC is mostly voluntary.

• If you think the author has a COI, you can move it back to drafts on that basis.
• If you feel that notability simply isn't there, and your BEFORE search finds no evidence either, you can take it to AfD.
• Otherwise (optionally) tag with any maintenance tags you feel are appropriate, and move on.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey there,

I'm just curious why you decided to tag User:BradleyFord991/sandbox for speedy deletion rather than deleting it yourself? Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 15:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Aydoh8: meh, semi-randomly, like much I do. ;)

Seriously, this was my first G15 request (I think) so I'm not yet too confident with that criterion, and didn't want to be the 'judge, jury and executioner', thought it might benefit from a 2nd pair of eyes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty fair reason. I think that everybody's still getting used to the new criterion (heck Twinkle hasn't even implemented it yet), and with another RFC on expanding the scope of the criterion, I think that your decision to get another sysop to look at is quite reasonable. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 15:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @DoubleGrazing, I hope everything’s alright. I came here to seek your guidance on finding article topics. I found a topic on the Alaska Triangle, and during my research, I gathered quite a few sources, maybe even more than enough, so I created a draft here: Draft:Alaska Triangle. However, I later discovered that an article with a similar title had been deleted three times, which makes me unsure how to proceed. I have collected multiple sources that I consider reliable and in-depth, but I wanted to get your advice before moving forward. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 08:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JesusisGreat7: I'm not familiar with the subject, and haven't looked at your draft or the sources in any great detail, but I did notice in the most recent AfD Articles for deletion/Alaska Triangle a comment about all the sources being traceable to some History Channel and Travel Channel programmes, which are also referenced in at least some of the sources in your draft. Obviously it's your call whether you wish to proceed with this, just don't fall into the same circular referencing (of sorts) trap. Especially given the earlier AfDs, your sources really need to be resoundingly solid. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, While searching on Google Books, I got few more, A television series and multiple books have also been published on it but still..... Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 08:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Following up the submissions. As of 2023 they are two separate institutions... with separate boards, etc. I'd like to split them up to reflect that and then keep the 'joint' page for legacy purposes to direct people to the new pages.

Existing page would become this, then link to the new pages: Valley Forge Military Academy and College refers to two distinct educational institutions that share a campus in Wayne, Pennsylvania, but operate independently:

• Valley Forge Military Academy – A private, all-male military boarding and day school serving grades 7–12.
• Valley Forge Military College – A coeducational, two-year military junior college offering associate degrees and military commissioning programs.

Although the two institutions share a historical connection and physical location, they are governed by separate boards and operate under separate leadership teams.

• Valley Forge Military Academy Website
• Valley Forge Military College Website

Mjbly (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mjbly: that was rather my point. If you wish to split the subject matter of the existing Valley Forge Military Academy and College article into two new articles, you should first discuss this on the talk page of that article, per WP:SPLIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazingI already did that. Psot on the talk page. This was my next step, to have the new pages ready to go. Mjbly (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Plz have a look on the editing history. He has personally attacked after my CSD tag. User talk:NepalFirst

Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but they were warned and don't seem to have edited since. If it continues, let me know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It continues. Also, DG, NepalFirst tried to remove the CSD tag, see the edit filter. I'll leave this to you, if you want to sanction the user. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC).

@Bishonen: yeah, I noticed. For now, I'm trying to nudge them onto the correct path, it's character-building (for me!). But they're not far off a block... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @DoubleGrazing.... Please fix double redirects in redirect pages User:Ninixed because circular redirects... Thanks..... 202.67.47.18 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing and Dukeofchelmsford: Hello Dukeofchelmsford: this would appear to be an unattributed translation of fi:Helsingin Pörssiklubi. Could you possibly address this concern on the article's talk page? (and pinging DoubleGrazing because they apparently are a native speaker of the language wot that Tolkien geezer modeled Elvish on.) All that said, the references sort of appear fair dinkum... having a look at the article now. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Aha, so that's why I could understand Elvish without subtitles! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll let the Duke answer this, but I've looked at both articles and have my views. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

<completely idle chit-chat unrelated to the substantive issue here> When I watched the scenes at the end of 2003 film The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King where Pippin, Merry, Sam and Frodo go back to The Shire from their adventures in big wide world and they are met with astonishment by little people with bad haircuts who are rather conservative in their views but are nevertheless fundamentally good-natured and welcoming to strangers, I initially couldn't pick up why that seemed so, so familiar to me. Then I realised: that was me, going back to Hobart for Christmas on a Fokker F27 Friendship in 2018 and an Airbus A320 in 2023.</completely idle chit-chat unrelated to the substantive issue here>--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

LOL :)) DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shirt58: returning to the matter at hand, I don't know if the Duke has responded elsewhere, but if you're still waiting for an opinion, mine would be that the English article isn't a translation (machine or otherwise) of the fi.wiki one. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Rattyexaltations (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cursed from Birth: The Short, Unhappy Life of William S. Burroughs Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Howdy, I'm not quite sure why my sources are unreliable. 1) I understand that the Ohle foreword is somewhat self-referential, but I'm not sure where else I can get the collating and editorial information if not from the editor himself. As the reference does not make assertions on the value of the work, but is merely describing the process of it's production, I don't see why this should be considered unreliable. 2) The Miles bio is considered the definitive biographical source on the subject. It is the reliable, heavily footnoted, second party source. There are two other biographies on the subject, but both were printed before the novel in question was published. I do intend to add further information from these, though wasn't under the impression they were needed for the initial article. 3) Reality Studio, the website in question, is maintained by one of the leading collectors and non-academic writers on the subject. It is the best source currently available on the publication details of novel and is used in other articles on the subject. I did not include the author's name (though I know it) because the link was not attributed to him, which I assumed was the correct thing to do. These three sources can be verified and seem reliable to me. I'm really not sure what the issue is.

Also not sure why it's not notable - the author himself and author's previous two novels have their own page. The novel has a 4 star rating from 203 ratings and 31 reviews on Goodreads, has a substantial collector's value and was published by reasonably well known independent publisher distributed by a major house. The paucity of contemporary reviews is largely because of the debacle of its publishing history, rather than a lack of notability. I'm not sure how this fails to qualify if the previous two articles on the author's novels have done so.

Rattyexaltations (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Rattyexaltations,

I declined this draft for two reasons, the main one being notability, the secondary being insufficient referencing. (The decline notice is slightly confusing, in that it puts these reasons in the reverse order.)

To demonstrate notability, you have two options: the general WP:GNG or the subject-specific WP:NBOOK guideline. The former requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject (and of each other). The latter has five criteria enumerated at WP:BOOKCRIT. I didn't find proof that either is satisfied. Please consider both guidelines to see which one you may be able to meet, and then provide evidence to support that.

Note that while it is possible for a book to be considered inherently notable merely by virtue of having been written by a notable author (BOOKCRIT #5), this is a very high bar, and applies in exception rather than norm (and even then, such books would almost certainly meet one or more of the other criteria also).

FWIW, I actually do think that this book is notable, it's just that the referencing does not (yet) bear this out. As a reviewer, I have to go by what is presented as evidence in the draft, not what my gut tells me.

As for referencing, my main concern was that some of the information is unsupported, eg. the final paragraph has no citations and a couple of the others end without a citation. More to the point, and going back to the question of notability, none of the sources are enough to prove notability, meaning that better sources are needed for this to pass, by whichever guideline. In other words, I'm not saying that any of the sources cited are unreliable, per se, but rather that the draft is "not adequately supported by reliable sources".

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)