User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 59

hello, i have created User : Kunal Shamshere Malla article on main space why this page is deleted. and if i want that text where i can get that text the error showing in my sandbox. 08:37, 29 November 2025 DoubleGrazing talk contribs deleted page User:Kunal Shamshere Malla/sandbox (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) Tag: Twinkle (thank) Kunal Shamshere Malla (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kunal Shamshere Malla: there is not, and never has been, any page at User:Kunal Shamshere Malla. You did create a draft in your sandbox at User:Kunal Shamshere Malla/sandbox, which I deleted as purely self-promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for telling the world about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO), even less for promoting anything. There was also no evidence that you are notable as Wikipedia defines it, given that the draft was entirely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have added more citations to Are You Sure?!. Can you check again?

Thanks MochiMinnie (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@MochiMinnie: you've submitted the draft, so it will be reviewed at some point when a reviewer gets around to it. We have over 2,600 pending drafts in the system, so this could take a while; please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing Thank you for reviewing my draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Al-Khafji_solar_desalination_plant&action=history)). I made a couple of changes including removing the references that may be considered not independent. I also added more independent references like an article from Arab news. The plant is widely covered even on published books but I feel like I am struggling to identify the best references that will prove notability. I am working on this article as part of my energy transition course for geoscience at Rice university and I am really optimistic that I got it right now. Please feel free to review and share your opinion when you have time. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SufyanMN (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@SufyanMN: you seem to have resubmitted your draft, so it will be reviewed again at some point once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing. I appreciate you reviewing my draft article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Second_Mile_Education.

You noted that "Most of the sources don't even seem to mention Second Mile." This is totally understandable. Second Mile is a management organization - the structure behind independent, non-profit charter schools. The schools have independent names, and unique brands, including mascots, colors, etc., all part of our effort to help at-risk students feel like they're at a "normal" school - even if the pedagogy is distinct from a traditional system.

By nature, the type of independent, reliable, in-depth public coverage that's demanded - and we've focused on - will focus on the local schools. Each and every reference in the draft cites a school within the portfolio of the organization - part of why the initial reference (despite first party references not being preferred) was to https://2ndmile.com/schools/ - and each and every school mentioned in the links has its own website - which also points back to the organization. (for example: https://alomahs.com/ or https://islandparkhs.com/).

I believe the organization should have a Wikipedia page - is there a different approach, given the structure of the organization, that would make it more obvious all the references are, indeed, about this company? Drewhill2020 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Drewhill2020: the short answer is no, there isn't a different approach that could be used. As the notability guideline for organisations WP:ORG states, "no company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement [of needing to meet the notability guideline], no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable".

There is also a practical problem beside this policy-based one: Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published about a subject, and very little else. If such sources don't exist, they cannot be summarised, and hence no article can be based on them.

The vast majority of organisations (of any kind) are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, so in that sense this is not a condemnation of the organisation you're writing about, it's just 'par for the course'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing my Draft:Lohia College earlier. I have now added stronger independent and secondary sources, including historical information from the Churu District Gazetteer (a government-published secondary source) which provides contextual and non-routine coverage about the college’s origin and significance in the district.

I have also included UGC and University recognition documents only for factual verification, not for notability, as per WP:ORG. My intention is to follow the guidelines correctly. Could you please guide me on whether the Gazetteer source satisfies the “significant independent coverage” requirement of WP:ORG, and if not, what additional type of secondary sources would be considered sufficient? Thank you for your time and help. ViKaZo (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@ViKaZo: that source where the gazette reference is hosted doesn't seem to be working. Government gazettes usually aren't truly secondary sources, because they just publish various official notices and announcements; in that sense they're not much different from a gov't-related website. In any case, even if it were secondary, that source alone wouldn't be enough to satisfy WP:ORG.

Other than that, I'll leave this for another reviewer to review next. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:SECONDARY, government-published Gazetteers qualify as secondary sources when they provide compiled historical analysis or descriptive information. District Gazetteers are written by independent editorial teams and are not affiliated with the institution, so they meet WP:RS requirements.

The 1970 Churu / Rajasthan Gazetteer provides independent documentation of the college’s establishment and historical significance.

Therefore, it satisfies the requirement of secondary sourcing for notability under WP:GNG and WP:ORG. ViKaZo (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@ViKaZo: as I told you, that server wasn't working when I reviewed this draft, so I couldn't comment on whether this one specifically is primary or secondary, I was saying in general terms that "government gazettes usually aren't truly secondary sources" (emphasis added). Moreover, as I already pointed out, even if this source were secondary, it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability.

Anyway, I've reviewed this draft already, and I stick with my assessment as it was at the time. You've resubmitted it, so you'll get another reviewer's take on it in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I’m still fairly new to editing on Wikipedia, and I’m trying to learn how to contribute in a constructive way. I also want to mention that the draft is based on a real company, and the goal was to present the information in an encyclopedic manner rather than promote anything. If parts of the draft were written in a way that did not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or tone requirements, I’m more than willing to correct them. I would appreciate any advice on how to improve the draft so it matches Wikipedia’s expectations for notability and reliable sourcing. My intention is to contribute positively and follow the guidelines as closely as I can. M.Qaiser95 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@M.Qaiser95: I take it you're referring to Draft:Link Forex? There is no evidence in this draft that the company is notable enough to justify an article. It cites two sources (which actually seem to be just one), which is routine business reporting and contributes nothing in notability terms. The guideline your draft needs to meet is WP:NCORP, please study it carefully so you know what sort of sources we need to see. You should also read WP:GOLDENRULE, which explains how to use sources to come up with acceptable draft content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Hello DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for reviewing the web page that I've been working on. I would love to add more citation to the organization's history that is not hosted by the organization itself, but there's a bit of a problem. All of this info was hosted by the White House's government site until it was recently deleted by the Trump administration because of its relation to DEI. Vestiges of the info can be found on various sites like Google Arts & Culture and ProPublica, but really the main history of the Reagan establishment is now only held on our own page, here.

What would you recommend is the best course of action?

Thanks!

- OperUponADream OperUponADream (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @OperUponADream: I declined Draft:Hispanic Heritage Awards for lack of evidence that the subject is notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses that term, namely meaning that sufficient secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject have published significant coverage of the subject. This basically means that print and/or broadcast media outlets must have published content about these awards, discussing their role and significance etc.; the Wikipedia article would then merely summarise what they have said. If such sources don't exist, their coverage cannot be summarised, and a Wikipedia article cannot be based on them. In that case, there isn't much that can be done, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. I cited 83 major public news articles on the event and the awards given to various public figures, which far surpasses the basic needs of the GNG. I followed the format of other major awards programs, like the Grammy's and Tony's (both of which cite their own websites for organizational history). Is the only thing missing this self-citation then, because I very purposefully avoided citing the Hispanic Heritage Foundation website but it would be easy to add in? OperUponADream (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@OperUponADream: all but the first two of the sources cited (at the time I reviewed this) were about individual awardees, not about the awards themselves. Passing mentions do not establish notability, however many dozens of them are cited; we need to see significant coverage directly of the draft subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, Thank you for taking the time to review my draft for Muthukumara S. Mani. Since your decline, I’ve expanded the draft to include multiple independent, reliable secondary sources (such as The Telegraph, The Jakarta Post, Vietnam News, SME Futures, and Invest Global) to address the notability concerns. Whenever you have a moment, could you let me know if there are any other specific areas you would recommend improving to better align with AfC expectations? I’m not asking for an immediate re-review—just guidance on whether the revisions are moving in the right direction. Thanks again for your help,

Rm1949 Rm1949 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rm1949: at a quick glance, the sources do seem better now than when I reviewed this; that's all I can say without reviewing it again. But since you've resubmitted it already, you'll be getting an assessment in due course when a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Saw you were one of the most recent admins online and didn't want SPI clerks to have to spend time on this because it's rather clearcut. Could you indef this editor? They admitted here that they were this editor, who was indef'd yesterday. (Regardless, the usernames are a bit of a giveaway) Thanks! aesurias (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aesurias: done, thanks for the heads-up. Turns out this account was the older of the two (not that it makes much difference either way). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear @DoubleGrazing

I have changed the reference link to more relevant content. Kindly approve so I can write more information about this article.

Thank you. Anandhu96 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anandhu96: when you feel you've addressed the reasons for the earlier decline, you can resubmit the draft. I can tell you, however, that there is still no evidence that this subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

My recent page with neutral citations "Ashoka Women's Engineering College" was not approved and declined, I have seen similar page like this, how it is possible for them to create an article like this? Can you please clear my doubt?

G. Pullaiah College of Engineering and Technology Drsasivakumar (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Drsasivakumar: there are any number of problematic articles among the 7m+ in the English Wikipedia, but that does not mean we should create more such problems (that is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy). The article you link to has been already tagged as problematic and may be deleted soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you for your reply Drsasivakumar (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, see the bottom of Special:Permalink/1327047846 for details. I hope the approach makes sense. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, @ToBeFree, and I like the cut of your jib! :) Odd case, interesting to see where they go from here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I learn a new idiom every day ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing. Would you mind deleting Evangelical Press Association and Jack Huddle? They've been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 November 27 for over 7 days and don't have any non-infringing content worth saving. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Done! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Happy Science about a Japanese new religious movement periodically sees a lot of activity from SPAs who are eager to show the organisation in the best possible light. In particular, they tend to dislike the fact that the article explains that the org is widely described as a cult (with so many sources that there's an "excessive citations" tag there.) A few weeks ago, one of these users did a fair amount of sealioning about this at Talk:Happy Science. Yesterday, a new account registered and immediately started arguing (by means of a LLM generated post) that a hatnote should be removed (also something HS believers have been complaining about), and rewrote large parts of the article to minimise the "many people call it a cult" claim with the use of much original research and some hallucinated sources. I reverted the changes and warned the user, but only now noticed their user name – ABONEDA. Am I crazy to think this is a not very subtle reference to my user name?? There's no way in hell this is a new user or that they are unaffiliated with HS, but I don't want to get into another long discussion with the followers of El Cantare. Just asking for your sensible eyes on the article, and please tell me if I've overstepped my mark in reacting to this latest account. Nopinging link: ABONEDA. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 21:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Bonadea,

Well, that was an interesting rabbit hole to fall into first thing in the morn. I can't believe I never knew such a thing as 'Happy Science' even exists.

My first thought was that 'aboneda' is just Spanish for 'subscriber', but upon checking, that's 'abonado/-a'. And having rummaged around in various edit histories, I now think that a) yes, this is clearly a returning user, and b) yes, their name could very well be an intentional anagram of yours.

The only earlier, blocked user I could perhaps connect them to goes back a few years, though, so CU won't be of any help (other than perhaps connecting them to some other current users, but I reckon that would be a fishing expedition). Or did you have someone (more recently active) in mind?

You are, of course, doing the right thing here, and I don't see any overstepping of any marks. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Let me know if any PP or other measures are needed. I'll also watchlist that article, just in case.

And now I'm off to join a certain delightful definitely-not-a-cult I recently discovered. Finally my life is about to have meaning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is good to see that you did not hesitate to embrace El Cantare. (It doesn't seem likely that anyone could honestly believe in that – and yet!) There were a brace of socks there some years ago, I think it was they who told me that they would contact my employer to check my credentials, but it's been pretty quiet for a while. I mainly wanted some more eyes on the talk page in case they were about to launch a new whitewashing campaign. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Gosh dang, I hope no one contacts my employer to check my credentials, they might discover what a fraud I am! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

No fees and nice facilities, I'm in! S0091 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I see that you, LEvalyn, and Asilvering are discussing my article The haven by Richard Dube. I just want my page in the mainspace where it belongs. Hopefylly stop or pause the messages from Izno, StarMississippi, Theroadislong and Meters.

You, LEvalyn and Asilvering seem to be fair and professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchy Dube (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested: I spotted your block of Jonathan110, ran some checks, and confirmed them to Ethammiller34, Rahulbala09 and Johnw423. If you spot any more, feel free to send them my way. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, @HJ Mitchell; I now have a few of those pages watchlisted, since these spammers (this spammer?) seem to keep coming back to them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I would guess it's one person. Possibly a small SEO firm. Tax articles are classic targets for spammers so even if they don't come back, more will come out of the woodwork. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I pinged you on the other page but wanted to add a link to the discussion here as well: User talk:The Bushranger/Archive41#Sockpuppet temp accounts? MossOnALog^Talk 17:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The diff shows an editor who has only now been warned (by me) for blatant self promotion. I wonder if you would, should you feel it appropriate, add a firm exhortation for them to cease and desist? The remainder of the user talk page is also illuminating, as is their edit history 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent: yeah, I've been keeping an eye on this, on and off. The problem (well, a problem) is that they have two autobio drafts plus a number of related others, and they're editing from two (poss. three?) accounts, so it's difficult to see the whole picture. I think they've been lucky to get this far, but are now nearing a block. I'll go take another look at some point. Thanks for the reminder. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Not urgent, obviously.

I have done my best with the account I've been following. I think that all insertions of themselves into other articles (this account at least) are reverted, but I know admins have a bulk reversion tool.

They have gone from an 'I'd like my name on Wikipedia' to 'I'm determined to have my name on Wikipedia because what I am and who I am is important, not just to me but to the local community as a whole.'

I think many of us do good things, and 99.99% of us are not notable! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I do find their tag teaam alternate accounts to be against the spirit of alternate accounts if not against the letter. I have warned the alternate as well. Do you want to pass me without pinging the username of the third? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent: the third one is Reema.1971.

I'm not saying they've done this (spread the editing over multiple accounts and duplicate drafts) on purpose, but it has nevertheless added more mud to the water. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

They are now also on a final formal warning. Thank you. I have also extended the connected contributor template where deployed.

I find this a deceptive behaviour, despite their 'owning' them and acknowledging them. It's quasi-sockpuppetry, feels like gaming the system, and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I have added a comment to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reema.1971. I feel Wikipedia has been deceived very carefully and with apologies. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I didn't realise there was an open SPI on this lot. Now the lazy me is thinking, if I wait for that to play out, I might not have to dig into this myself at all. <sits back, puts feet up> DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

You rejected : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leave_Me_Alone_(software)

I'm curious to understand why the page was rejected while on their competitors page, structured the exact same way, with the same depth of links is being accepted no problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Email ~2025-36391-04 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation :) ~2025-36391-04 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy. A common one, but a fallacy all the same. There are all sorts of problematic articles among the 7m+ in the English Wikipedia, which may have been created without any approval process, and some of which date back many years to when our standards were less stringent. That does not mean that more such problems should be created; all new articles must meet currently applicable policies and guidelines.

In this case, the draft cites four sources. Lifehacker is generally not considered reliable. PCMag is, but that one returns 404 'page not found' error. The Register provides borderline significant coverage and seems to be based at least partly on input from the developers. And the last source is primary (Jotform's corporate blog). Arguably none of these contribute towards the WP:GNG standard of notability. We need 3+ source that do.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

PS: I only declined this draft, not rejected. Rejection means the end of the road, whereas decline means you may resubmit the draft for another review once you've addressed the decline reason(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

alright, thanks for the feedback ~2025-36391-04 (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear DoubleGrazing, thank you so much for restoring my Talk Page and for reverting the vandalism therein.

I suspect that this vandalism has been induced by an earlier user, engaged in creating different accounts and operating with the same modus operandi. Please let me know how to report these users for a suspected sock puppetry investigation.

Thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Retro music11: yes, I think this user is the same as Edit by Sona, who in turn a sock of Alakmarsaify. If you want to report them, you can add a new case to their file Sockpuppet investigations/Alakmarsaify, but there is probably no need now that I've already blocked them (unless you suspect there are more accounts which haven't been blocked yet). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for responding.

I'll write back to you as and when I suspect new accounts. Retro music11 (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the above, may I ask you :

I've come across a newly created contributor account adding unsourced BLP puffery/information to the same article repeatedly. I've reverted the edits and they've been notified twice on their talk page. Please let me know what's to be done in case they violate the sourcing policy for the Third time. Many thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I've come across a newly created contributor account adding unsourced BLP puffery/information to the same article repeatedly. I've reverted the edits and they've been notified on their talk page, twice. I cannot conclude whether it's a case of promotional editing or paid contribution.

Please let me know what's to be done in case they violate the sourcing policy for the third time. Many thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Retro music11: if it's unreferenced BLP content, that can and must be removed. If the user keeps adding it back to the same article, you should first warn them on their userpage with {{Uw-ew}} etc., and if it continues, you can take them to WP:ANEW.

If it doesn't amount to edit warring, but is still a pattern of BLP violations (eg. spread over time and/or over different articles), then you can report it to WP:BLPN.

Peacockery, on the other hand, is usually just a content dispute, and is best settled by discussing with the other editor(s) on the article talk page, or on their talk page, whichever is more appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Retro music11 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

"Draft:The Garfield and Dr. Seuss..."

• 🖘
• 🖘

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 04:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

?? Can I buy an extra clue, @Shirt58? DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

⌧ Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add a reference to the Noahide Manifesto to the Wikipedia entry on Noahidism. The manifesto is highly relevant to the subject, much as the Communist Manifesto is to communism and provides essential context for understanding the modern articulation of the movement. My attempted addition was rejected, and I do not fully understand the reason for this decision. In my view, the reference is of clear value to readers seeking a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of Noahidism. I would be grateful for your assistance in clarifying the issue or in helping to incorporate this reference appropriately. Thank you very much for your time and consideration --Prof. Haim Azhari (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prof. Haim Azhari: I'm assuming the document you were citing as a reference is something you've (co-)written yourself? Citing your own works isn't usually appropriate, and can be in some cases considered spamming and/or self-promotion. Also, citing anything hosted in Shopify library gets immediately flagged as an unreliable source. I would strongly advise against trying to reference this source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your explanation.

The document was prepared by the Noahides World Center. You are indeed correct that I volunteered to assist and took part in its preparation. Beyond that, however, I have no personal involvement in the matter (I am not a Noahide), nor did I request or receive any remuneration.

I agree with you that my involvement, including the assistance with its publication, may give the appearance of a conflict of interest. That said, as an academic, I must note that self-citation of one’s own work is not inherently improper.

As for the substance of the matter, in my judgment the document is important both for Noahides themselves and for a proper understanding of Noahidism, and it deserves to be brought to public awareness.

The question, therefore, is whether there exists any objective mechanism accepted by Wikipedia that could evaluate the document and provide a formal opinion as to whether it is appropriate to cite it or not.

Thank you for your consideration Prof. Haim Azhari (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prof. Haim Azhari: two possibilities come to mind:

1. You can make an edit request on the article's talk page, as suggested in WP:SELFCITE; the easiest way to do that is with the wizard at WP:ERW. That way an uninvolved editor will assess your proposed edit, and the source supporting it, and may accept your proposal.
2. Alternatively, you may start a discussion on the same talk page, explaining what you want to do and why. You may ping the editor(s) who reverted your earlier edits, in case they wish to offer their reasoning for reverting. Such a discussion may take a while, and may or may not result in consensus, but it has the benefit of involving (potentially) a larger number of discussants than an edit request which is usually handled by a single editor.

Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prof. Haim Azhari: You said that your attempted addition was rejected, and I do not fully understand the reason for this decision., which is blatantly false, as you have already been warned three times for trying to push an agenda by adding texts copied from the aforementioned manifesto and spam links redirecting to its religious propaganda website on the same article (). It seems to me that what you are trying to do here is to trick uninvolved editors in order to implement these changes anyway, regardless of all the warnings on your talk page, with extensive explanations as to why your edits are in contrast with Wikipedia's core policies and content guidelines (). It is difficult to put trust in a new editor's good faith when they deliberately ignore all warnings and rules that all Wikipedians must follow, and decides to trick the system regardless of other contributors trying to help them understand what Wikipedia is not. GenoV84 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prof. Haim Azhari: Furthermore, a true academic would know firsthand that self-published and self-written primary sources, as the propagandistic manifesto that you are still trying to add to that article, don't qualify as reputably published, high-quality reliable references by any means. But you already know this, because I have already suggested you to familiarize yourself with WP content policies and guidelines more than once (), and yet you decided to come here to ask for advice from another editor while pretending to be oblivious about your own behavior, trying to game the system in other ways, and deliberately ignoring the purpose of this encyclopedia and the way it works. Do you have any explanation for this? GenoV84 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Information about the Ottoman 1st Infantry Division is already available in Erickson's book, where he lists individually which corps, armies and regions it was in. What other source would you like me to cite? Do you want the text as a source? Shall I provide the table as a source? Earslaner2001 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Earslaner2001: per WP:ORG, we require multiple sources to establish notability. ('Multiple' in this context is usually understood to mean three or more.) Citing the same source multiple times (if I've understood you correctly) would only still count as one source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Then I can find other books about the infantry division. For example: "The 1st Infantry Division's participation in the offensive in Palestine, its deployment to the Caucasus" and so on. Good Wiki's Earslaner2001 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For writing an excellent UTRS decline today, and for generally being an awesome admin. Toadspike [Talk] 11:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Ha, thanks @Toadspike, v.kind of you!

And Merry Christmas, if you're observing (or merry other assorted season's greetings, if you're not). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! (Whether I am observing or not is as of yet unknown, even to myself...) Toadspike [Talk] 12:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)