User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 61

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I have significantly revised the draft for Ethernet Xpress India. I understand the concern about routine announcements. I have now centered the article on the company's role in the Feb 2025 Goa internet blackout, which received in-depth, non-routine coverage from The Times of India. This source includes independent analysis and commentary on the company's regional impact, moving it beyond a simple business listing. I would appreciate it if you could take a second look. Draft:Ethernet Xpress India Private Limited

Submission declined on 19 January 2026 by DoubleGrazing (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. AsmiExpl (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@AsmiExpl: if you feel you have sufficiently addressed the notability issue, you may resubmit the draft; someone else will review it next. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thank you for the update. AsmiExpl (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi DG, could you have a look at Polli Cannabis and see if it is sufficiently different from the version deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polli Cannabis back in 2021? According to the article there's nothing new since '21, so it's back to AfD if G4 is not appropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bonadea: they're completely different; not just written in different styles, but even the information is so different that I had to check if they're actually about the same person! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I submitted my draft, Berthe de Rohan, and this user is saying my sources don't even mention her?? It’s not that hard to read the whole source which are short. If they don't contain her, which is only like one source, thats because I was talking about her grandmother, and not her. Maybe take another look at my draft. Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe base your draft on sources that actually talk about her, not about some indirectly related subjects. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you even listen to my complaint, at all? Look at the sources. It is not hard for people who are competent and literate. Read the article, see sources and just read until you can see her name. Use context clues and see how each source correlates to the sentence I'm talking about. Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Please calm down, your comments are verging on personal attacks. If you would like to get anywhere with your drafts, I suggest you follow the advice being given. DG and others have been doing this for a long time, and they know what they are talking about. Lynch44 17:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the aggressiveness. However, DoubleGrazing was saying all sources didn't include her at all, which is a stretch isn’t it? I am following directions from several people yet what can I do? There is no sources that have significant coverage of her, only small pages and records. I want my draft to be accepted but I don’t see how it’s possible if theres not significant pages and sources that talk about her. Landonwantstoknowthat (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood how Wikipedia articles are written. They summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about a subject. If such sources don't exist, they cannot be summarised, and therefore no Wikipedia article can be based on them. This is the gist of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.

Anyway, let's analyse your sources – taking each in turn:

1. Is just a genealogical entry which merely confirms that she existed
2. Does not mention Berthe, and in any case is a blog and therefore not considered reliable.
3. Mentions Bertha, not Berthe, but let's assume that's the same person. Again, just a genealogical entry, and also seems to be at least partly based on Wikipedia, which creates a circular reference.
4. Does not mention Berthe.
5. Does not mention Berthe.

If better sources cannot be found, then an article on this person cannot be accepted.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Just prior to the creation of user:Ebadatcv the user was almost certainly using TAs:

• ~2026-36856-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and
• ~2026-42170-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (same IP) in an attempt to hijack Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers

Final edit by user:~2026-42170-5 was to create Draft:Cyber Villain 2. It's not as obvious a copy of Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers as Draft:Cyber Villain was, but once again any sources that are still live mention only Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers, and not the supposed Cyber Villain group. Meters (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Meters; I meant to look into those TAs but got sidetracked, so appreciate the nudge. I've blocked both, and G5'd the Cyber Villain 2 draft.

I believe this account is a reincarnation of Thebranddunia. They were blocked back in April 2022, and I'd be astonished if they had stayed away all this time. So apart from those two TAs, if you know of or come across any other accounts or TAs, please let me know. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. I'll add this one to my list of socks I should recognize. Meters (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Meters: is that list just yours or some sort of shared repository? Anyway, sounds like a good idea, I might copy that – would save me trying to store everything in my increasingly foggy brain. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

That's just something I started keeping for my own use because I found I often recognized a sock's behaviour without being able to remember the SPI case name. Not enough info for WP:BEANS to be an issue, but just enough to jog my memory. I'm always a bit surprised at how much institutional memory is needed for some of Wikipedia's inner workings. Meters (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Serious congrats, @DoubleGrazing :) qcne (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Edward Ferguson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: OGL licensed material - requires addition of attribution but does not require deletion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• Note: You might find WP:FREECOPYING helpful. Or maybe not. Copyright is such a crazy and weird area. -- Whpq (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Whpq, appreciate it. Glad I didn't just go ahead and delete it, then. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I'm not sure what to do with the birthdate, and most certainly I do not want to start an edit war If you insist, I could ask the Professor, but as I understand that should not be done. I used facebook as source but is that relyable? The birthday as stated by me seems to be correct. Thanks Harold Foppele (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele: per WP:DOB, we can only publish a living person's DOB if it has already been published by a reliable source. Facebook and other social media are not considered reliable, and in any case you didn't cite a specific FB post, your citation only referenced "facebook" without providing any details.

Asking the person in question to confirm their DOB is also no good. I've no reason to doubt that they would know this, but that isn't the point: Wikipedia is only interested in what can be verified, not that which may be true but is unverifiable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing just for the fun of it, I tried to find my birthday at internet. Guess what, no where to find. NOT to make fool of this, but do try it for yourself. Would you be OK with a specific link to facebook? Or any other idea? Thanks Harold Foppele (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Harold Foppele: be that as it may, the DOB cannot go in, unless supported by a reliable published source.

I'm also curious, of what great importance is it to have this person's DOB displayed in the article? Especially when the whole article looks to be heading for a deletion anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, they are still working at the article to improve it. Looking at other articles i find no birthdays with reference(s) Harold Foppele (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:DoubleGrazing and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

sublime --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

hope you are good and doing well. May you please see the article tjat you gave me comments if I arranged it well according to your valuable comments. Thank you very much for your assistant. Best Regards Hayatmansoor (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. 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

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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)

Hey DG, can you kindly tell me briefly about the reasons why ASAP Semiconductor was not approved, i added all the citations for authority and rewrote the whole article myself for any AI Detection, which i previously also wrote myself, can you kindly help me understand the issue, is it about the citations or the overall tone of writing the article or something else, and can i include the forbes citation if that helps in getting this article live. MHaroonAliKhan (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@MHaroonAliKhan: sure; your draft was just you telling the world about your business, its history and what products and services it offers. We're not interested in any of that; that is considered pure promotion here (see WP:YESPROMO). Instead, we want to see what third parties, esp. secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of your business have on their own initiative decided to publish significant coverage about ASAP and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Your draft cited only primary sources which do not count. You need to find multiple secondary sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and summarise what they have said. The process of using sources to compose article/draft content is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE, and the notability guideline your draft needs to meet is provided at WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi DG, I dont wanna get blocked for spamming, because i am not, i am working day and night for this article to be live and the reason of me believing in it is because this company is worthy of getting noticed by wikipedia for its years of working and achieving great heights, the main blocker for me is finding reputable citations for it and i am really working hard to put notable cites for it. Kindly cooperate and teach me, i would be really thankfull. MHaroonAliKhan (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@MHaroonAliKhan: the vast majority of businesses are not notable enough to justify an article, and that may well be the case here as well. In fact, you saying that you're struggling to find appropriate sources pretty much tells us that. And if a subject isn't notable, there's nothing you can do about that; no amount of editing will conjure notability out of thin air. If you keep on insisting and submitting one draft after another which all get declined, rejected and deleted, that is when you cross the line into spamming. That's what I was trying to warn you against. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks For making me understand, I completely get your concern, I really think i can get it live, i believe in the cause, me struggling to make this article is due to me being very new to writing an article on wiki and understanding how the encyclopedia works, i think i now got the gist of it and i really appreciate you helping me out in this project of mine. MHaroonAliKhan (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@MHaroonAliKhan: you "believing in the cause" has nothing to do with it, nor does "years of working and achieving great heights". The only thing that matters is whether this business has been the subject of significant coverage by multiple secondary sources, which so far you've not managed to bring forth. Unless and until you have such sources, you're just wasting your time, I'm afraid. That's about the long and the short of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I Really appreciate you helping me out in this, Although, after carefull consideration i've submitted the draft with solving each issues and citing proper and notable mentions, take your time to review this. MHaroonAliKhan (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@MHaroonAliKhan: will you PLEASE stop removing the earlier reviews and comments, I've now had to restore them three times (and that's only for this version). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

thats my bad, i wont remove them again. Thats for the followup, ill keep this on mind from now on. MHaroonAliKhan (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @DoubleGrazing, I hope you are well.

My draft, Eberly College of Arts and Science, was rejected by you. I was wondering if you had any advice for me beyond adding independent sources.

Do you think the subject is notable enough? I was inspired to write about it because some of the colleges at West Virginia University already have stand alone articles (John Chambers College of Business, College of Creative Arts and Media) and I concluded that since Eberly was the largest of them, it had attained enough notability to justify an article of itself.

Thank you for your input, it will really help me succeed on publishing my first article!

Sincerely,

~AmericanIrishman AmericanIrishman (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AmericanIrishman: I've no idea whether this subject is notable. That depends on whether there is sufficient coverage of it in secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of this college. Your draft cites only primary sources, mostly ones close to the subject (ie. not independent). The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG, which explains what sort of sources we need to see. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

Hi @DoubleGrazing , Hope you are doing well. I want to mention, kindly check the links once again; I have added independent articles mentioning everything related to him, including from the renowned media publications in the Middle East. Still I feel bad you mentioned that there is notability issues. TechEditorUAE (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditorUAE: I don't need to check the 'links' again, I do the job properly the first time. You've cited 19 sources, some of which are indeed reputable publications, many are probably reasonably reliable, even. Not one of them counts towards notability.

So far you're not here to help us develop an encyclopaedia, you're here solely to promote your boss and his business, neither of which appears to be notable. As I already told you earlier, if you carry on like this you will be reblocked sooner or later.

I get that you're in a difficult position when your boss tells you to create these articles, and doesn't realise what a difficult task they've given you. I suggest you read WP:BOSS and, more to the point, show it to your boss also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DoubleGrazing : Thank you for your reply , but when I check wikipedia i see lot of people who are available with no base notability , Is the rule applicable for one person or common for all. I dont wish to share the name of the profile or its editor in this public space , but those profile have even worse articles cited. TechEditorUAE (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditorUAE: that is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy; a very common one, but a fallacy all the same. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that I can just ignore the whole concept of notability and write an article on any subject I want, because there are bound to be other articles among the 7m+ in the English Wikipedia which also provide no evidence of notability. And I don't need to cite any sources, either, because there are other completely unreferenced articles out there. In fact, none of our policies and guidelines would mean anything.

And yes, the same set of notability rules do apply to all new articles. Many of our articles were created years ago (we just celebrated our 25th anniversary last month) when our criteria were different, and some of those have legacy issues that haven't been resolved yet. Some of our articles are also created by editors who have sufficient permissions to publish articles directly into the encyclopaedia, and some even get automatically approved without any post-publication review; among them, some may be lacking in notability etc. terms. But as this is an entirely volunteer-based project, we can only deal with issues that we become aware of. So if you've found articles that don't meet our current notability (or other) standards, you're welcome to either improve them, tag them with maintenance tags, or instigate deletion proceedings.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I get that point. Its clear. As you suggested , I have now removed all unwanted references and added the only relevant references and rewrote the article. Please check from your side and let me know your comments.

Thanking you for your support. TechEditorUAE (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditorUAE: the draft now cites four sources, none of which contributes anything towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Natalie White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Natalie White (Survivor contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey there. As I see, the page "Natalie White" is now more about an artist. Can you still undelete old revisions of what should've been again a redirect to Survivor: Samoa? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: sorry, what is it you want undeleted? There's nothing in the history of Natalie White (Survivor contestant) other than that redirect. And all I can find in the deleted history of Natalie White is several versions of Natalie White. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

And all I can find in the deleted history of Natalie White is several versions of Natalie White.

If these versions are about the Survivor winner, can these old revisions be un-deleted and then moved to the other page with the disambiguation? Or...? George Ho (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: sorry, I should have said "several versions of Natalie White, the artist". I've not seen a single revision that was about the contestant, but I didn't check them all (there are over 300!). I can have another look, bear with me... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Well... I just now re-created the other page as a redirect, just in case. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: I won't be able to do this now, I have some IRL matters to deal with. If you ask at WP:REFUND, someone else can deal with this in my absence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This was requested at RfU but was archived. It is not forgotten, I have an eye on it, I just didn't get time. Jay 💬 07:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I recently made an article about the school Eliot K-8 Innovation School, I want to confirm that the reason I was declined is that I did not have sufficient citations, is that correct? Welovecontributorss [TALK PAGE] 14:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Welovecontributorss: I declined your draft because it provides no evidence that the subject is notable, given that it cites only the school's own website, and one passing mention, as sources. We need to see significant coverage of the school in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent.

And yes, it also needs more citations, as most of the paragraphs are currently unsupported. While drafts on organisations do not require as comprehensive inline citations as ones on living people do, we still need to know where the information comes from so that it can be verified. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @DoubleGrazing, I have reviewed and resourced my article. I also have improved some parts of it. If it’s okay to ask here, could you take another look and review it? Welovecontributorss [TALK PAGE] 06:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think you've sufficiently addressed the reasons for the earlier decline, you may resubmit the draft and someone will review it in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. This and subsequent edits might need revdel as blp violations thanks. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Deepfriedokra, I didn't spot that earlier. Done.

Hope you're keeping well and enjoying chillaxing on the beach with a cold libation (or whatever it is retired admins do)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You mentioned that WP:A7 does not apply to educational institutions. However, this institution is private and for-profit, and may not qualify for notability. Could you please help me understand whether these types of institutions are allowed?
I have come across hundreds of private institutions that have Wikipedia pages created for marketing and promotional purposes. As I am from India (not to be forceful, but I am strict against vandalism and bad practices), I know some important details about these institutions. I never nominate articles outside of Indian institutions.
According to WP:NCORP, for-profit educational institutions are explicitly considered commercial organizations and must meet the same notability criteria as any other company or business. @DoubleGrazing

KnowMosaic 10:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @KnowMosaic:

As WP:A7 states, that provision applies to any article about a [...] commercial or non-commercial organization [...] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions (emphasis mine), hence why I declined that request.

You are right, in that private for-profit institutions are subject to the same WP:NCORP requirements as (other) businesses, but that is a separate issue, namely of notability, and does not relate directly to the A7 provisions. If you wish to contest an article on notability grounds, WP:AFD is your primary route for most subjects, including educational institutions.

And yes, I agree that there are a large number of articles on educational institutions which do not satisfy our current notability criteria, and which should therefore be either improved or taken to AfD. This stems at least partly from the change, c 10 years ago, when we stopped assuming secondary schools and some further/higher education colleges etc. to be automatically notable for merely existing, and started requiring sources demonstrating notability per WP:ORG. Alas, many older 'legacy' articles remain, and even new ones are being created by editors who are either still relying on the old notability presumption or modelling their articles on these legacy articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Great!, thank you for the clarification.
Could you please take a look at the other Draft:Aravind Srinivas (created by someone else)? After providing references from multiple sources, I believe the subject is notable. The subject is a co-founder of Perplexity AI. I understand that being a CEO alone does not automatically qualify someone for notability, but I have provided multiple references from independent sources.

---

KnowMosaic 11:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@KnowMosaic: what is your involvement with this Srinivas draft, since it's not your own creation? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not my draft. As I am in the STEM field, if I find something interesting and neutral, I edit.

---

KnowMosaic 13:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@KnowMosaic: yes, I know it's not your draft, it was created by a blocked sockpuppet. I would steer clear of it, if I were you, lest someone thinks you're also associated with that socking ring. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree

---

KnowMosaic 16:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

In my semi-regular check of edit filter 1370 I saw a TA making this edit; looking at their other edits I saw Draft:Zulox and Draft:ColanXP and some other drafts which made me wonder if it's some kind of rather unpleasant fantasies about fictional violent rappers and sexual abuse of children, or if they are severe BLP violations, or possibly both. You will see what I mean, I think; now excuse me while I go look at some photos of my great nephews reading picture books, to cleanse my brain a bit. --bonadea contributions talk 14:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bonadea: good grief, that was strange.^{[understatement]} I don't know what it actually was, and am not sure I'd care to find out, either, so I've just deleted them and a couple of related drafts as G3. And blocked the TA. Thanks for flagging this! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Nowt as queer as folk, is there. --bonadea contributions talk 19:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I just discovered the minimalist beauty of the lyrics in one of the rappers' songs: . Surely this is a genuine artist! (sarcasm aside, it made me chuckle.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Loving that, so simple yet moving. <3 Appeals to my pure Nordic sensibilities. Positively soul-soothing. Thank you for sharing, Bonadea.

Apropå, as I was deleting those drafts, I followed some of the links to others, and left a few of them there because it started to look like one or two could have been actual bona fide musicians. Of course, that could still be just wishful thinking, as in "here's me, and here's my collaboration with Eminem" (yeah, right). I don't know, I find this whole genre quite confusing; sometimes it's difficult to tell what's real and what's not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. 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) 09:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

We both dealt with a COI editor and their colleague(s) about a month ago - specifically User:Devgru20. They've started creating articles directly into mainspace and adding links to the university article, going against the previous warnings to use AFC and make edit requests.

I originally added a thread to the COIN board but had second thoughts & wondered if I should just give them another warning?

You can see how many of their drafts have been declined at User talk:Devgru20, and that another editor has just come across all of the direct-to-mainspace articles and moved them to draft.

Since this is the same behaviour that caused the issue in the first place (although we have a declaration now) & I'm not familiar with COI issues, I'm a tad lost on what to do next - can you please help at all? Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

"Hello Blue Sonnet, thank you for your patience and for pointing me in the right direction.

I am User:Devgru20, and I’d like to sincerely apologize for the confusion. I realize now that jumping straight into the mainspace and adding links to the university article was against the guidance I received, especially given my conflict of interest.

I have now made a COI declaration on my user page to ensure full transparency. Moving forward, I am committed to following the community's 'guardrails':

AfC Compliance: I will submit all new articles through the process and will not move any drafts to the mainspace myself.

Edit Requests: I will use the "edit request" system on talk pages for any proposed changes to established articles, such as the one for Chonnam National University.

Improving Quality: I am currently reviewing the feedback provided by Grapesurgeon and other reviewers on my declined drafts (such as the Lee Jin-an article). I will focus on providing more independent, reliable sources to establish notability and will address the concerns regarding the writing tone.

Thank you for your guidance. I value the integrity of Wikipedia and will work to become a constructive and compliant member of the community.

Best regards, Devgru20 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Devgru20, please do not use AI to generate your comments, I've no interest in what some text prediction algorithm has to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Sorry. Devgru20 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, @Blue-Sonnet.

@Devgru20: I can see that you have been causing a lot of disruption since the last time I had reason to visit your talk page about a month ago. Several editors have expressed concerns about your editing, much of which is disruptive and some actually violates our policies and guidelines. You keep apologising, but we're not interested in apologies, we want to see changed behaviour. Going forward from here, I expect you, as a paid editor, to fully comply with our rules going forward, including not creating or moving into the main article space any articles in the subject of which you have a COI. I also want you to convey this message to any colleagues you're collaborating withs, so that we don't need to have the same conversation with multiple users.

I have just issued you a final warning for disruptive editing. If this sort of behaviour continues, I will block you without further notice. (Blue-Sonnet, do please let me know if you witness anything sanctionable after this, or if I you feel I've missed out something.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear DoubleGrazing, I hear you loud and clear. I sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused to Wikipedia. I realize now that my repeated apologies were not backed by the necessary changes in behavior, particularly regarding my conflict of interest and the AfC process.

I am now fully committed to the following actions to show the change you expect:

1.No direct-to-mainspace editing: I will not create or move any articles related to my COI directly into the mainspace.

2.Strict AfC compliance: I will submit all new content exclusively through the Articles for Creation process for independent review and will only move forward based on that feedback.

3.Internal coordination: I have shared this final warning and the mandatory rules with my colleagues to ensure we all fully comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and do not cause further disruption.

I value the opportunity to contribute and will ensure my future actions strictly follow these requirements. Thank you for your patience and for providing this final chance. Devgru20 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

delete warning at top of wiki page Davidt47 (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems to refer to the maintenance templates at the top of Dave Trembley. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Davidt47,

First, a point of order: Dave Trembley isn't "your wiki page", it is a Wikipedia article about you. That may seem like pedantry but underlines a real point: you neither 'own' the article, nor control its contents. I don't say this to offend you, only to set the record straight.

I also have to tell you that, if (as I assume) you are indeed the Dave Trembley in question, you shouldn't be editing that article directly yourself, as you have been doing for the past decade or more. That is the reason I put those maintenance tags there. Please do not edit it again; you may instead make edit requests via the article's talk page or by using the wizard at WP:ERW.

The tags can be removed once someone has gone through the article to check that there is nothing there that shouldn't be there. I will try to remember to do that myself at some point, but any uninvolved editor can do so, and that is the reason why I tagged it.

I hope this helps to clarify the matter.

Best Regards, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Davidt47 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up with you with more than a Thank You - very clearly the record has been set straight - at no time did i know that i was going against the guidelines - if i had known i was that would have stopped. It is a honor to be included in Wikipedia. You will have no more issues on this end. Thanks again for your insights. Please when you can remove the maintenance tags - lesson learned. Davidt47 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)