Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

If fitting, could you take a fresh look at the page “Peter F. Barth”,  and see if its two “page issues” warrant removal at this time (due to COI, I understand that I should not remove them.) It received these, plus about 50 edits (undisputed), from one editor between January 17 and 23, and closure was brought to the final {cn}  tag only last week. I have not added to, or rewritten, page text since that time.

Your handling of this request would give me the highest confidence that the decisions (or edits) on this matter are indeed made in strict accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and the spirit of its mission.

I remain most appreciative of your early help with the page’s draft, which undoubtedly ensured its continuation/successful evolution since launch — and likewise for “Mind teachings of Tibet” (top 3% accepted submissions rating) and “Georg Limnaeus” (top 17%.) Thank you, once again.~~~~ Thapkhay (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, thanks for the ping, and kind comments. Good to see you are still around, and doing a little editing too.

I've had a fresh look at the page, and see the substantive edits by Skyerise in particular. At this stage I am inclined not to remove the tags, because in my view they remain essentially true: at least many (if not the majority) of sources are very closely associated with you; and you remain the major contributor to the article.

While I, and evidently other editors and reviewers, remain satisfied that the page meets the notability criteria, I think the tags should remain so readers are aware of those issues. I realise this would be somewhat disappointing or frustrating for you, but I do think they are valid and within the guidelines at this time.

All the best. Cabrils (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear back from you! Thank you. As you could probably glean from the ping title (via its reference to “tag(s)”), I was unsure whether it would serve the readership best to remove both tags, or only one, at this stage.  Indeed, I now agree with your view on the second tag, “a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject” —  this was clearly true at the outset, and is still a reasonable caution to offer to the readers.

Regarding the first tag,  however, I would like to ask you to consider this analysis of sources now cited (quotes and categories A.-E. are per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE):

“The most reliable sources” (published, independent , and third-party) which are now included in the article are:

A. “Mainstream newspapers”  (e.g., “Argus-Courier”, est. 1928, acquired by “The New York Times” in 2001; see Ref 1, cited three times)

B. “Magazines published by respected publishing houses” (e.g., “University of Vermont, est. 1791, publisher of UVM Magazine (incl. online feature articles ); see Ref 2, this article is written by a senior UVM staff writer, and serves as a Secondary Source — as per WP:SECONDARY SOURCE, based on the writer’s analysis of a multitude of primary sources, including UVM records, cited four times)

C. “Journals published by respected publishing houses” (e.g., “Library Journal”, est. 1876; see Refs 5 and 18, plus “Marin Small Publishers Association, publisher of “SPEX”,  est.. 1979, now BAIPA.org; see Ref 17)

D. “Peer-reviewed journals” (e.g. “Physica”, est. by Elsevier in 1921, as Physica; “Physica A” was created by them in 1975 to focus on “Statistical mechanics and its applications”, the subject’s field, per WP-SOURCETYPES “academic and peer-reviewed publications” are  “the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science”; see Refs 9, 11, 12)

E. “Books published by respected publishing houses” (e.g. “Shambhala Publications”, includes “Snow Lion Publications”, est. in 1969; see Refs 4, 19 and 20, plus “Wisdom Publications”, est. 1983; see Refs 3, 13 and 15)

Dear Cabrils, may I ask you to consider this analysis for the core set of citations presented in the subject article, in combination with your earlier evaluation(s). I think one can now see clearly that it is based on “solid ground”, with an array of the highest-caliber reliable sources (per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE ) and it is due to this,  I am recommending that “tag one” be removed at this time. The statement, “This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject,” is no longer true;  these are all independent or third-party sources, the more frequently cited sources are indeed Secondary Sources (although it is clear that the writer’s’ conclusions are not in themselves proofs.) Furthermore, clicking on the link provided with this tag leads the reader to a suggestive description of “self-published” and “questionable” sources, neither of which pertain to any of the above core examples of sources provided in the article. The tag is now a misrepresentation of the article.

Furthermore, by this one can see that the first part of the warning stating “potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral”, is no longer true. These sources are verifiable. The second part of the warning, and the risk to neutrality is also largely eliminated; I would still have agreed to it, had it not been for any scent of lack of neutrality being removed by Skyerise via 50+ edits. I appreciated that meticulous effort and how, indeed, the page was appropriately cut of any “peacocking” and with self-published works included as a basis for any statements presented.

Based on this page history and the above rationale, and your input , I am now considering requesting the removal of first tag via the talk page of the article, but the first tag only.

In any case, I continue to be completely appreciative of all your help and input on this (and welcome any more thoughts you may have on this matter.) Thank you, once again. Peter Thapkhay (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thank you for that detail.

On perusal, however, I'm not comfortable removing the tags.

On looking at the page afresh, in my view it is a long way from being a clearly notable entry. The mere fact it is written almost exclusively by you, the subject, requires it to meet a higher standard because of the inherent conflict of interest (see WP:AB, WP:PROUD).

For example, the University of Vermont piece written by Kevin Morganstein Fuerst, is effectively authored by you: it opens "Peter Barth G'81 sent us a class note in June 2024 that was so rich in detail and included such wonderful photos that we had to make it a "Class Notes Extended' feature.". You wrote and sent a biography to Class Notes Extended and Kevin published either literally what you wrote, or an edited extract of it, and so in my view this article does not contribute towards establishing notability as defined.

Please be mindful that the page needs to clearly meet the relevant criteria such as WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR etc.

Accordingly, I would be cautious about your current course of action.

Having said that, if you wish, yes, you could post your thoughts on the Talk page, or on WP:TEAHOUSE, where they are much more likely to be attended. Cabrils (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both notes you have provided in response to my question(s). Even your “discouraging” and BOLD words, given in the framework and spirit of Wikipedia are very much appreciated.

Tag Two: Indeed, due to possibilities for “lack of neutrality”(as you and WP:PROUD, etc. note), the page continues to warrant the second page tag.

Tag One and UVM Article: Regarding the “UVM feature article, the full disclosure (up front) speaks to the integrity of their process and an aspect of their reliance upon my input as part of that process. It is a normal part of any information gathering for a feature article to obtain testimony from the the subject (if available), and others, and to collect materials (such as, photos, and suggested notes on verifiable “independent” sources” as evidence on the authenticity, or lack of authenticity, of testimony of the subject, or others. UVM also rather uniquely has had access to primary sources on the subject (e. g., including birth certificate — promoting removal of the first {cn} tag, and the physics department’s records — a justifiably reasonable basis for its inclusion as an introductory citation as Ref (2) ) Their research includes both “verifiable” (for a moment/context, this word needs to be understood in their framework, not Wikipedia’s, since institutions rely often on primary sources which they can, and must verify) primary (such as the range of related technical papers) and independent secondary sources (others such as peer groups via their evaluations for oral defense of thesis and certification of the published thesis and presentation at a major technical conference.) Like all mature educational organizations, UVM does not consider WP a reliable source for academic and publishing purposes; however, for excellent reasons, WP considers them to “generally” be the most reliable sources (indeed, with some exceptions, as you point out.)

The UVM affair began in late March, after I submitted to them one photo (shown of me with some family - they correctly removed the names of all living persons from the caption, including my wife, another example of their professionalism) along with two lines of updates (announcing a “special event “, 1) a celebration of my 68th birthday, and 2) my retirement status) into their online communication system (for alumni.) The UVM staff who reviewed this input soon realized this was my first contact with them since 1981 and thereby promptly initiated, (and took the reins), in championing a process that, five months later, elevated their work to a “published UVM feature article.” It took four to five months for them (“us” per Fuerst, referring to the UVM team) to complete their work. Fuerst (an executive at UVM’s Foundation) explicitly, and unequivocally, identifies himself as the writer, an act which gives UVM major legal responsibility (and potential jeopardy) for the content and must be approved at their highest levels. Details about the team’s (“us”) overall vetting process remain unknown (to me), but I cannot think of one reason to question them on this matter; I think you would agree that UVM would not compromise their standards for production and publication of this feature article. They will also have their own standards as to what is notable, but that provides no risk to (and is in fact praised by) Wikipedia, which has its own meaningful definition of notability.

That the UVM subject’s story (based on their view of notability) echoes aspects of the Wikipedia story (based on its own) on the one or two snippets of the subject’s life story, is curious (and, understandably, may raise suspicion.)It surprised me (and was more sugary than I expected.) On the other hand, it is totally not surprising, when one considers that they are both largely based on each of their own sets of verified facts (each in their own way), which included many common sources; this similarity may actually be construed to show that the stories’ views of notability are similar, and in this way provide a bit of validation to their efforts (only a bit; for example, UVM was totally disinterested in the personal life of the subject, as well as his extensive career; like Wikipedia they thought the briefest mention is enough. I now totally agree with that, as you have also.)

Perhaps really the crux of all this matter — and the very helpful editorial guidance which you provided — is that it, in spite of the UVM article being a WP preferred reliable source, you clearly have demonstrated to me how it can create serious uncertainty with respect to the reliability of the provided source; this, in itself, is enough to give me serious pause. That you see so clearly that tag one still is warranted is now enough for me.

Based on my experience with the soundness of your advice (on several occasions in the past!), and your excellent efforts and sincere commitment to Wikipedia and its readership (also, with some good results for readers, apparently, so far, in terms of inspiring my small efforts), I have no further intent to initiate a reconsideration of removing the “two page tags” at this time.

Thank you, once again, for helping me get to the heart of the matter. Thapkhay (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and help. I tried to implement your suggestions, can you please check if the article is good now? Majku17 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, do NOT remove Comments and Draft info boxes from the Draft.

Secondly, before undertaking any further assessment, you must please address directly the issues raised in my comments, including WP:THREE and WP:COI. Cabrils (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Cabrils for accumulating at least 100 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Worm Gear Award
		This award is given in recognition to Cabrils for accumulating at least 7 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Gilbertson (climber) 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/Eric Gilbertson (climber) 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.

Dear @Cabrils, I've revised the Alex Kentsis draft page and included specific details on the revision in its Talk page.

Draft talk:Alex Kentsis#Revision to academic biography

Thanks for your help.

Neenotchka (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Draft and Draft Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see expanded explanation on the Draft Talk page. Thanks. Neenotchka (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Draft's Talk page, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see additional responses on the Draft's Talk Page. Appreciate your help in validating COI box, thank you. Neenotchka (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Draft's Talk page, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neenotchka, well done, thanks for your patience developing the draft. Page now accepted. Cabrils (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I updated the citations using the automatic citation for most of them. Hopefully they fit the correct style now.

I also added 2 sources that support the notability. I added a topic on the drafts talk page identifying the 3 best sources to support notability as you suggested.

You also mentioned it reads like a cv. I have been following the articles on Paterson PD and thought it was an interesting topic. I used ChatGPT to help me find sources and draft an initial body which i then edited. Is there anything specific that needs to be revised? Most of the statements/sentiment were revised from the public articles that i used as source material.

Thanks again for your time to review. This is my first Wikipedia article and it is a learning experience. NYYanks01 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NYYanks01, thanks for the ping. That all sounds very progressive. I'll try to look at the revisions shortly.

In the meantime, I highly recommend you create at User Page (see WP:UP), which will be much more efficient for communicating, and will be helpful if you need to declare a conflict of interest: please see, and address, the WP:COI inquiry I made in my comment on the draft.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

I just wanted to check back on this. I create a User Page and Talk Page. I don’t have a conflict so im not sure how to address it. I was under the impression that i have to affirmatively disclose a conflict of interest. Where do i document or affirmatively state that i have no conflict? NYYanks01 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NYYanks01,

If you don't have a conflict of interest, it would be helpful for you to state that on the Talk Page of the Draft, so other reviewers can see that. I am a little surprised though, that given this is the first page you have created, you have chosen a curious subject, if you are not being paid and do not know them.

I will have a look at the revised draft. Cabrils (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:THREE as requested on the Draft's Talk Page. Cabrils (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils, thank you for your assistance, I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because i added additional sourced and have edited the article and removed the infobox as well (as advised by jmcgnh from the real-time chat. Hope you can take a second look and review. Thank you so much! 112.204.160.39 (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils, i created my account and now uses this username just as you advised. I also included the draft within the scope of WikiProject YouTube (see talk page) as i have learned that it is dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to YouTube and its personalities. I hope this helps us with this article. Thank you so much! RavenFireblade (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RavenFireblade,

Thanks for the ping.

1. I see you have declared a conflict of interest on your Talk page (good work creating a User Page etc). What is the nature of your conflict? Are you Jack Logan? Are you being paid etc?

2. As previously requested, it would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils, i am a follower and a friend to him. NO i am not being paid to do this. I just learned that there are Filipino vloggers here in Wikipedia so i maybe i should try. Can you help me reassess the article again?. RavenFireblade (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously requested, it would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

And also, as previously requested, it would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 and #2 because the person has been nominated for such a significant award or honor, and the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; (internet culture in the Philippines) RavenFireblade (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, please post any comments onto the draft's Talk page so they are more easily accessible to other reviewers:

1. As requested, it would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

2. And also, as previously requested, it would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").

3. Please copy from above and paste your clarification regarding the nature of your conflict of interest.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, i have entered the clarification in the draft's talk page. Hope you can find it and reasses. I also submitted the draft for review. Thank you! RavenFireblade (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the re-submission because you have not substantially amended the draft as required. Please see my comments on the Draft page. Cabrils (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article. Could you please let me know what I should do for this article to be published? I see there is a few issues with the pictures and references- however this article is on my grandmother and besides primary source knowledge and articles published in Italy on magazines at the time of which I have first physical copies, there are not other resources which are available online. As she has passed away recently and I think she is an important figure as the first female Iranian filmmaker who started working in a male dominated industry and time, as well as an activist against a regime that eventually exiled her for her journalism work, her story should be profiled on Wikipedia to inspire women in specific and people in general. This is my first Wikipedia article, therefore thank you for your support in getting this complete ! 62.19.186.17 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping.

That's a great initiative to draft a page for your grandmother, however for pages to be published on Wikipedia they must meet certain criteria, all of which I explain in my comments on the draft. Currently the page does meet the necessary criteria (as I explain on the draft), includung notability, reliable sources and conflict of interest. It's clear you are new here so while I admire your efforts, I do think you need to spend some time learning what is required and again encourage you to visit and thoroughly read ALL the links I included in my comment.

The best place to seek advice about creating pages is WP:TEAHOUSE.

I wish you all the best. Cabrils (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils,

I’ve implemented the recommended changes to the draft for Spencer Aronfeld, including revising the tone, replacing unreliable sources, and addressing notability concerns with stronger references. Could you please reassess the submission when you have a moment? I’d appreciate any further guidance to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you! 2603:7000:38F0:61D0:1C9E:7D05:C89B:A8CD (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping. Please my comments on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 00:05, 9 November 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) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cabrils,

It's been a while. Figured I'd give you a ping about this.

I've since learned my lesson on how not to edit on Wikipedia, especially with the COI. It's been about a month since the article was deleted, but I saved a copy of the Eric Gilbertson article in my userspace prior to its deletion. I recently submitted a reworked draft of the article to AfC, having done my best to reduce fluff and self-published sources (i.e: the table is gone, information only verifiable through his blog is gone, and the blog is only referenced once which can be removed if needed). Also, ExplorersWeb, an unreliable source, has been entirely removed from the draft.

Many of the sources are independent of him (i.e: Nat Geo Poland, The Times of London, BBC, and Sueddeutsche Zeitung). Other sources, such as "The Line" on the American Alpine Club journal appear to have taken excerpts from Eric's writing but have been written by someone else. See WikiProject Climbing's climber notability.

Given his coverage between the Rainier survey and sources mentioned above (among others) do you still think he's WP:TOOSOON? Taking in the suggestions of the AfD discussion, not all coverage on him appears to be purely interviews.

Given my COI, I will not be the one to move the article to the mainspace should it be accepted by reviewers. If it is moved to the mainspace, I will also refrain from doing direct edits and would only suggest them through the talk page.

If you get a chance and are willing, I'm happy to hear feedback. I have learned my lesson and will not do any disruptive edits. I know last time I did things the wrong way, but want to do things right this time around.

Cheers and thank you for your time! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

That sounds like good progress and appreciate your willingness to learn.

I will have a look and come back to you (likely in the next week or so). Cabrils (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cabrils! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowledgeIsPower9281,

I've had a look at the current (revised) draft and I'm happy we keep developing this to see if we can get it across the line.

The draft is looking much more palatable, so I think it's now in a position to wrestle with the actual requirements. To do so:

1. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

2. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Also, it would be good to move our discussion to the draft's talk page, for greater visibility for all reviewers, so moving forward let's communicate there.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Cabrils! Doing WP:THREE and the page's met criteria now. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowledgeIsPower9281,

Apologies for such a tardy reply.

I think the revised draft looks good, and have commented on it, seeking the opinion of DJ Cane who nominated the previous version of the page for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber)). Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion provided. Thanks for the ping. I'm happy to collaborate with this project further if needed and/or desired. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DJ Cane and @Cabrils! We'll keep working on this draft to get it ready for the mainspace and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included! I guess the best place to collaborate would be the draft talk page? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Yes, the Talk page of the draft is the best place. Cabrils (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cabrils and @DJ Cane, just created the topic thread on the draft talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've made the necessary edits, plus a few more. Are you able to approve it, please?

Thank you! Spangles123 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping.

As I requested in my comment on the draft:

1. If you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).

2. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Further, the insubstantial changes you have made since the draft was rejected on 3 November by @Theroadislong, are not sufficient to overcome the issues previously identified. Cabrils (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

1. I don't have a connection to the subject. Is there a way that I can declare this?
2. I've added in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent sources. The article about the school in Devon Life magazine (source 14), the BBC coverage of an event held by the School (source 15), coverage of the schools activities and exam results in the press (sources 9, 11, 12 and 13) and a recent mention of the school in The Times (source 2) means that the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3. The school inspection report (source 1) is an extremely in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent source and I have quoted from that extensively. The school has a few notable alumni, including one of the founders of the CND. Is there anything else that I should add.
3. Theroadislong might not have been very happy because I told them that having to use direct quotes from the school inspection report instead of paraphrasing was bad writing. Despite this, I did add the quotes, as they requested.

All the other schools in the area have a Wiki page, but they don't meet all of these requirements. See King Edward VI College, South Dartmoor Community College, and Teign School. I don't understand why I'm having to jump through so many hoops, when others haven't been forced to. Spangles123 (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I encourage you to [create a Userpage], which will make communicating much more efficient.

Once you have done that, on the draft's Talk Page (not here on this page), as I have previously requested, please:

1. Start a discussion and declare that you do not have any connection to the subject, if that is in fact true (which seems a little doubtful given the nature of the page you are creating). For clarity: there is not necessarily a problem with having a conflict of interest (for example, you work at the school, or are a student or parent, or are being paid), but you must declare that on your Talk page.

2. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page (not here on my page), the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

3. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Doing these things will progress the assessment process.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)|}[reply]

You previously mentioned on a draft that you would reassess it when resubmitted. Draft:Neshe has been resubmitted. If you do not with to review it again, let me know and I will. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]