Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Hi there, 12eeWikiUser, and thank you for contributing so many informative articles on Africans and Africa, including quite a number in connection with Rwanda. After you drew my attention to the need for reviews, I've been looking carefully through your contributions, reviewing and assessing when necessary. You can see from your Xtools listing that of the 55 articles you have created, seven are rated B class and 20 C class. This is quite an achievement. I look forward to many more, especially if you could begin writing biographies of women in addition to those of men. Please alert me on my talk page if you need further assistance. Happy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ipigott,

Thank you so much for your careful assessment of my work. It's motivating to see that some of the articles I've created have been rated B and C class. I'm excited about the suggestion to increase my focus on writing biographies of women. I'll be sure to reach out on your talk page if I have any questions or need assistance. Looking forward to contributing more! 12eeWikiUser (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cassie Petrey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassie Petrey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dclemens1971, I thought I had followed your past advice. Why did you nominate this at this time? 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was pretty clear in the nomination statement, where I provided an evaluation of every source in the article. Which sources did you think were WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, why did you move it into mainspace while it was still waiting for re-review at Articles for Creation? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, I created the article as an autoconfirmed user, and I don’t typically use AFC. However, I submitted it as a draft to receive feedback from other editors. During that time, I was also confused due to the comments you had shared in past nominations. The reviewer raised concerns, which I addressed, and then allowed the article to move to the main space for review. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article history shows the reviewer declined (diff), but it does not show that any reviewer "allowed" the article to move into main space. The history shows you moved it (diff). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, according to Wikipedia:Drafts, it is acceptable to move a draft into the mainspace. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you have criticized every source I use, leaving me confused about what qualifies as a secondary, independent, and reliable source. For instance, regarding Forbes sources, you previously criticized the authors and referred to them as non-byline. I noticed strange comments on its recent sources. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes source you used was a Forbes writer writing about the subject speaking on a panel at a Forbes event. It's not independent coverage of the subject; it's promotional coverage for Forbes' activities. (These are great questions to raise at the Teahouse, by the way, before publishing an article.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, thank you. Let me take my time in pages you created and learn what qualifies as a secondary, independent, and reliable source. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every source I use is secondary and independent, but every article, to pass WP:GNG, must have at least two sources that are secondary, reliable, and independent AND that show WP:SIGCOV of the subject -- unless a WP:SNG applies. For example, on Nestor Poltic, this and this would be considered SIGCOV in an independent, reliable, and secondary source, and thus the subject passes GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, thank you. In Darrell Critch, which are these two? 24eeWikiUser (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: https://livingchurch.org/news/news-anglican-communion/acna-priest-elected-bishop-in-madagascar/. Critch is covered by a quasi-SNG at WP:BISHOPS, by which Anglican Communion diocesan bishops are found to be presumptively notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971, Initially, it was hard for me to understand but thank you—I am satisfied now. Generally, it is difficult to save an article during an AfD discussion. Please, where possible, try to be a bit more tolerant before nominating articles for deletion. I edit Wikipedia passionately, and this is the first time I’m having such a hard time. Before publishing, I always ensure, to the best of my understanding, that a page deserves to be on Wikipedia. You are the first to consistently criticize my work this much, but I hope it helps me grow. I think it might be easier to judge a subject in a domain you are particularly interested in. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I am just doing my work as a New Page Reviewer. Before you begin writing a biography, why don't you bring your sources to the Teahouse and ask whether the volunteers there think there are enough sources to pass a notability guideline? Alternatively, next time you are preparing an article, I would be happy to review sources before you write it and offer my thoughts on whether they demonstrate the subject's notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, next time I will seek for help. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]