User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Your draft article, Draft:List of Emojis

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of Emojis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Final Five Voting: Question About Rejection

Good day, and thank you for your review of my draft, Final Five Voting.

Your rejection cites this reason: "Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability."

The article is thoroughly cited with articles in mainstream media about Final Five Voting, and the voting method has been used in major elections nationwide (described in the article) so I believe it meets the criteria for substantial use and press coverage.

You mention that the topic is included within an existing Wikipedia article, "Top Four Primary," but I believe it would be an inappropriate commandeering of that article to fully flesh out the Final Five Voting section. For this reason, and the depth of information in the Final Five Voting draft, I believe it justifies having its own page.

I appreciate your consideration of this appeal. Aapril3 (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aapril3: some minor semantics here, I did not reject your draft, I simply declined it. As such, you have the option to resubmit if you would like to have another reviewer review it.

In regards to notability, I personally found that the citations did not demonstrate the that the subject itself was notable. Take, for example, "Politics Industry Theory maintains that standard industry evaluation techniques and competition thinking like Porter’s five forces analysis can be applied to the U.S. election system to produce election results more reflective of the true preferences of voters" the end of the history section, with the citation to Stateline.org. The only mention of the final-five in the article is "Then, in a system known as final-five voting, the top five candidates would advance to the general election. In the general election, voters would then rank those top five candidates, triggering the ranked-choice mechanism during the vote count." Otherwise, the article seems to be focused on Ranked-choice voting in the United States, which was my suggestion of where the content should go; see my declination comment "... perhaps on Ranked-choice voting in the United States which is linked in the draft, given that all the examples seem to be American. Especially considering all of the examples don't even use final five systems as it is." Take a look at our WP:Significant coverage policy on WP:Notability for further guidance here.

With regards to my reasoning, I felt I expanded a lot in my AFC comment in addition to the declination reasoning, showing other articles that may be a suitable location for it. Not every example of state usage listed in the draft article even use "final five" voting, so would the explanation of those voting systems even be applicable in your draft article?

If, given all the above, you still think this topic has independent notability and the states examples are specific to "Final five" and not simply ranked choice voting, feel free to present which WP:THREE sources demonstrate as much. While that linked essay is mostly applicable for Notability discussions at WP:AfD, it's philosophy is very applicable at AfC. I would reconsider if you still feel strongly given my guidance on the draft page and here, and you provide those three sources.

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Angelita C. et al. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Just want to say that the article was objectively terrible on several levels and while the topic is in fact highly notable, this really would not have been at all obvious to anyone who hadn't already done some reading on strawberry pesticides, or lived in some very specific areas of California.

If you are around in a day or so I could possibly use some fresh eyes to assess how well I have explained the thing for a reader that knows nothing about all this. Don't worry, not a full-scale AfC, just whether you can actually read it without getting a headache. I'd appreciate hearing about any continuity errors. Elinruby (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby, I would be more than happy to dive into that article and provide feedback when I next get a chance. Looks like an interesting read. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

After we talked I noticed your interest in Wikiproject Soil. Do you have an opinion on or are you familiar with soil fumigation? If so feel free to suggest sources anytime. I find it, er, interesting, that all of the EPA documents linked in the news sources are now giving 404 errors, but some have been archived. And someone uploaded a lot of PDFs to Commons, trawling through those. Elinruby (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Elinruby, I did some quick copy-editing for clarity and changed the lead to present-tense as is typical in court case articles that are still valid (see, for example Roe v. Wade in stead of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization).

In regards to soil fumigation, what is your concern? I hadn't previously checked, but I noticed that Soil fumigation redirects to Fumigation which is, well... *opens to do list*. What was specifically are you interested in? You wanted to add sources to the article? You think some of the sources given aren't suitable?

Let me know, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 01:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that almost all of the sources are extremely RS but hmm what I knew about the facts before I started editing this article revolved around Oaxacan migrants and agriculture on the Central Coast. I am suggesting that perhaps you have specialized knowledge that I do not. I hesitate to outline the topic on your talk page, since that will involve length, but soil fumigants are injected into the soil, which is then covered with a tarp to mitigate the drift of carcinogenic particles. From Fumigation#Chemicals methyl bromide is the topic of Angelita C. article, and chloropicrin and 1,3-dichloropropene are alternatives to methyl bromide now that methyl iodide is no longer on the market.

The essence of Angelita C. is that the tarps don't work very well and the methyl bromide disproportionately harmed non-whites given that agricultural communities in California are disproportionately non-white. A lot of the sources take issue with the scientific review process at EPA, and the models used to assess health risks. I am literate enough to get through the reports but it's a hard slog, so I am asking whether this would be any easier for you. And also asking whether there is something that can/should be said about the idea of killing anything alive in soil that will be used to grow produce. Just spit-balling. I think, as an effort to clarify the structure, I will outline this topic on my talk page, since one of the things I am asking you to look at as fresh eyes is whether it is clear what the Montreal Protocol or methyl iodide have to do with anything. Also whether it is clear that while the complaint focused on children (and given mandatory school attendance probably rightly so), these pesticide issues affect millions of people, and that is without getting into the even more polluted Central Valley. Side note, I am assuming from the mention of Guelph that you are in Ontario and not necessarily familiar with the names of California regions, so let me point out a hole in the road: Central California = Central Coast + Central Valley but all of the areas mentioned in the article are on the Central Coast and the Central Valley has very different harvests and climates.

Appreciate the input and any further suggestions. I still can't find a good inbox, also; might have to set up something bespoke, since this is *not* a court case and was specifically disallowed from being a court case. Hope this clarifies my request. Given some of the (well-sourced!) material about the EPA, I really want the article to avoid amateur error, is another reason why I am asking for your thoughts Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I put that outline on the article talk page if interested Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Ship naming conventions

Thank you for reviewing the submarine article. Though I also wanted point out, that to my understanding, the original title of the article was in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions for ships. The normal style is nationality, type of ship, and ship name. I just thought I would let you know, and thank you again for reviewing the article. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Romanov loyalist,  Done! My apologies, that reading of the article title conventions looks correct. I've swapped those pages. Thanks for the heads up, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Pre-colonial trade routes in Africa

Hi, MicrobiologyMarcus!

I popped in to thank you for pointing out an erroneous citation on my Draft, Pre-Colonial Trade Routes and Networks in Africa, the citation of which I have since removed. I may have miscopied an ISBN—otherwise, I have no idea how that citation happened there.

Psst! I'm not sure how to leave a message here, but I'm clicking on "Add topic" coz it's the only option I have.

Best Regards. Matandi2001 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Matandi2001, you are correct in that adding topics on the talk page is the best way to get in touch with another editor. Good job on your first draft. I wasn't the one to leave the remark about the citation, my comment on the draft was that it was a little light on the citations, I didn't feel that it was ready for mainspace quiet yet but thought I would leave it to another reviewer if someone else felt it ready to accept. With more inline citations, I think I would feel it more acceptable and in line with our WP:V policy.

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus!

Thanks for the compliments. Did you say "With more inline citations..."? I didn't know 13 quality references were inadequate for that size of an article! But well, we always learn something new.

Best, Matandi2001 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Matandi2001, it has to do with some sections of your draft lacking citations. Currently, there are large sections that are entirely void of citations. It is fine if that is sourced from the same material that sources other statements, those sections just need those citations to be identified so others can easily verify your work. Take, for example § Cultural exchange, which currently has no citations, so someone could challenge that material and remove it as unsourced. You are probably familiar with our {{citation needed}} maintenance tag that exists for this purpose. Material will need to have sources demonstrating it has been previously published and not WP:Original research.

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

And, by the way, @MicrobiologyMarcus, I know you're more experienced; why is my signature, Matandi2001, in red, indicating that the "page does not exist"?

Most obliged, Matandi2001 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You can find your user page at User:Matandi2001 and clicking create source and adding some text and then publish page. Mine is located at User:MicrobiologyMarcus. The link will turn blue once a page has been created there. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate in asking!

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcus! Matandi2001 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Fishsicles/sandbox

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus, the draft User:Fishsicles/sandbox has been made made redundant by the publishing of the Sodium tetrapropylborate article and I want you to blank the entire sandbox and remove all the contents and corruption in it and make it an article and give it to Fishsicles. 2409:40F4:300E:27B2:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Madilen Negri

puoi darmi dei suggerimenti per rendere il testo più consono a Wikipedia...? Andrea Vizzini (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Request on 06:26:07, 12 June 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Sumansindhu

• Sumansindhu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gaurav Burman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I read your message on why you have rejected the article. Can we speak on why you thought that the subject is not noteworthy and how I can improve the article. Thank you very much for your time.

Sumansindhu (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gaurav_Burman&action=edit Sumansindhu (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sumansindhu, your draft wasn't rejected, it was declined. As such, you still have the option to make improvements and resubmit the article.

1. Have you read the declination reason given by myself or @DoubleGrazing? In both instances, the reasoning given said:

   This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)

   or the second reasoning which said:

   This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed

2. Have you addressed any of the comments and feedback left by any of the reviewers at the top of the article, specifically as it relates to inline external links?
3. Have you addressed any of the maintenance tags that reviewers left in the article pointing out flaws in the draft article?

Lastly, DoubleGrazing has asked on your talk page that you affirmatively respond to a WP:Conflict of interest or WP:PAID concern regarding the subject of this draft. Please respond there and make any necessary declarations on your user page in accordance with our policies.

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @MicrobiologyMarcus

1) I understand and improve on Inline Citation external links when making further changes to the draft.

2) I will make sure to keep the point of view as neutral as possible going further.

3) I am not paid or have any monetary expectation from the subject. I realized that the subject is noteworthy and that I could start my article writing journey with this. Sumansindhu (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Compare and contrast essay

Hello Marcus,

Suggestions noted. Can you just tell me what seemed like fluff to you so that I can remove it?

Thanks. DKas321 (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @DKas321, in my opinion, everything south of "Writing & Organizational Techniques" is not encyclopedic. I wasn't going to delete it for you because you have references in there, but you need to ensure that you are citing to references that demonstrate the subject of your draft article (here, a specific type of essay) talk about the subject in depth and are secondary to any purpose the author or publisher of the work might have, such that it sufficiently demonstrates the subject of the article is notable, a requirement for any article on the project. Again, this is my opinion, but university instructional material on "how to write" a compare and contrast might not be sufficient in demonstrating WP:Notability, but I would concede other editors might differ on this opinion.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear @MicrobiologyMarcus

Thank you so much for all your feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ronalds_Gonzalez We would really appreciate if you can take a look at it now and check if now we comply with your recommendations. The recommendations were the following: Does not presently appear to meet WP:NPROF. Written in a promotional tone, not using objective and descriptive language. WP:Bare URLs require cleanup, see WP:REFB for more information. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 19:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Marquezronald (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Marquezronald, who is "we"? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @microbiologyMarcus me and a friend from Venezuela Daniel Calderon (who studied with Ronalds Gonzalez), We believe that Ronalds Gonzalez is one of the Venezuelans that can be highlighted as one of the top researchers in biomaterials from our country. I am from Universidad de Los Andes, the same University where Ronalds Gonzalez graduated. Marquezronald (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you please answer to our previous question? "We would really appreciate if you can take a look at it now and check if now we comply with your recommendations." Marquezronald (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Marquezronald you and your friend need to both make your own unique account as this account is a violation of our WP:SHAREDACCOUNT policy. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sharing an account, after you asked for more information, I had to ask Daniel Calderon other details (who knows him), for example city of birth, etc. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at my answer to your recommendations. "The recommendations were the following: Does not presently appear to meet WP:NPROF. Written in a promotional tone, not using objective and descriptive language. WP:Bare URLs require cleanup, see WP:REFB for more information." Marquezronald (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Marquezronald have you reviewed WP:NPROF and do you believe your draft article currently demonstrates that the subject satisfies one of the criteria? Second, do you have proper citations to previously published sources for the personal information you have given above. Personal knowledge is both WP:OR and, given the subject, a violation of our WP:BLP policy if you do not have proper WP:V for that information. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Sandboxes Submitted for Review

Some of them are worth reviewing, and some of them are not worth reviewing. Thanks for reviewing them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Very cryptic, but always happy to help. I definitely find reviewing good, quality articles more rewarding but sometimes you gotta go through the clean-up categories as well. I know I appreciated when someone cleaned up my first draft.

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What happened is that you and User:KylieTastic and I had a race with the items for review in user space, and some of them were crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Stefan Pastine

Hi MicrobiologyMarcus, thanks for your work on Wikipedia.

I wrote the Stefan Pastine draft entry you reviewed and rejected today. I added several external citations (SBIR/NSF, MIT Technology Review, Simems Gamesa Report). I'm just wondering whether those aren't sufficient as credible outside sources and/or if you feel like there needs to be more of them?

Thanks again

SC Seamus Costello (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Seamus Costello, a small clarification: I didn't reject your draft, I declined it. As such, you are encouraged to make the necessary changes required for a mainspace article before resubmitting. At the top of the draft, the individualised instructions I left were "Inappropriate external links in text. See WP:REFB to understand how to convert these to inline citations." You'll notice that in the draft article, there are links that are not formatted as citations but external links. These will need to be corrected. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate that @MicrobiologyMarcus. Ill reformat those links.

Best

Seamus Costello Seamus Costello (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Feng Qing Jin Si Baota

I just saw this article moved into mainspace. Regardless of its quality, it's an unattributed copy of the same article on the Ukrainian wiki run through Google Translate (though it is written by the same user), so it may need more than basic cleanup. Reconrabbit 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Reconrabbit, I've considerably WP:STUB-ified the article. It cited to a product listing and was mostly health benefits and other promotional content. I'm in the process of a WP:BEFORE to determine if the topic meets WP:N or if it should proceed to the next step... You aren't familiar with the topic at all, are you? Any opinion on its notability? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is in the same boat as many food and drink topics - it may be independently notable, maybe in its native language, but good luck finding independent sources on its notability; all you will find are product listings. Maybe it deserves a spot on List of Chinese teas, where you will find other products with similar issues, e.g., Jin Jun Mei tea. Reconrabbit 16:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: fair enough. Seems to be lots of product listings, nothing too encyclopedic in any BEFORE. Suppose the article is fine as is now without any of the frivolous claims and hopefully can be cleanup with the existing tags. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@MicrobiologyMarcus thanks for checking. I was initially just confused at the move history, glad it was put in an acceptable state. Reconrabbit 16:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the unattributed translation, I've left {{uw-translation}} on the author's talk page. Thanks for catching that! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that it was the other way around - the article was just translated to the Ukrainian wikipedia today, and their userpage there already has {{Uw-translation}} from January. Reconrabbit 16:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

About that duplicate of Abu Al-hayja

I accidentally made two pages about it, please if you can delete the first one and only review this one. Jackhanma69 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jackhanma69, not a problem. Given that the page is now in the correct location and the old page has been corrected, I have removed the declination from the AfC history and done some minor copy editing to the draft while it awaits further review. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your cooperation and assistance :) Jackhanma69 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Madga G. Chippel Sandbox

Hello, thanks I appreciate your feedback. Please is there anyway I can prevent the page from deletion? 102.89.22.58 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Editors or authors of pages marked for speedy deletion may contest the speedy deletion by leaving remarks arguing against the deletion on the articles talk page. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thintronics

Hi microbiologyMarcus, You left a note on my Stefan Pastine entry suggesting that the independent citations weren't enough in number. I added another, there are now 4 independent media refs in there.

Alexaner Tulio from C&EN

Will Mathis From Bloomberg

James O Donnell from MITTR

Mike Buetow from Printed Circuit Design & Fab.

Is that sufficient, I can add some others but from my POV those cover the coverage.

Thanks again for you wiki efforts. Seamus Costello (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Seamus Costello, did you note my comment regarding WP:External links? At present, your draft still has two inline with the text. My suggestion would be to resolve those as it is likely to be declined again on that basis, but if you feel it sufficient, you draft has been submitted for review. At the time time of writing, the AFC submission template says Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,239 pending submissions waiting for review.

Personally, I don't believe WP:Notability has been demonstrated and the article still takes a WP:Promotional tone. Do you have any relevant WP:COI declarations that you need to disclose in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Term's of Use? See WP:PAID. It's fine if you do, these just need to be disclosed on your user page, and you are doing the correct thing by creating the draft article through the WP:AfC process.

I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant Wikipedia policy, as writing a draft article can be a difficult task for a new editor. See the guidance at WP:THREE as a good place to start

Kindly, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gia Walsh

Thank you for the clean up of my draft. Any insights you could share regarding what I may need to add? Your input would be appreciated !

mgenzac

Mgenzac (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mgenzac: as my concerns with the declination related to WP:Notability, try to demonstrate coverage of the subject in independent and reliable sources. Take a look at one of the WP:SNG such as WP:PRODUCER as it relates to the subject, to see what might be used to satisfy our notability requirement for articles on the project. You might also find the essay WP:THREE helpful. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan

@MicrobiologyMarcus - Would you kindly take a look at the amended draft with new primary sources added? Really appreciate it. Rajeevstkt (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Rajeevstkt, I have resubmitted your article on your behalf. Please be patient while a reviewer gets a chance to review the draft article. I will review it for the improvments I suggested if I get the chance. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks 185.26.153.26 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Centra Tech

Hello, MicrobiologyMarcus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Centra Tech, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jasper Harris (musician)

Hi Marcus - thanks very much for reviewing Draft:Jasper Harris (musician). I appreciate you spending the time and I’ve made some changes based on your feedback.

You pointed out that the Variety article I cited for the first of Harris’s two Grammy nominations only said he worked on Kendrick Lamar’s “Family Ties,” which won a Grammy. This is correct. But the Wikipedia sentence has two citations - the second is directly to the website of the Grammys. The same is true for the following sentence, which also provides a source providing context to Jasper’s work on the Grammy nominated album of the year, and is followed by a second citation directly to the Grammy website.

If you go to the draft, you’ll see that in order to address your concerns, I have restructured the sentences so that the context language does not mention the Grammy awards and the Grammy award language cites directly to the Grammy website.

In your comment, you don’t mention that I cited directly to the Grammy website to confirm his nominations when you say you can’t tell if he had actually been nominated. Perhaps this is an oversight? I hope you will agree that the Grammy website is a proper use of WP:Primary since the source is independent of Harris, is the most credible source possible concerning Grammy nominations, and, as per policy, is used to represent “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge”.

I must disagree with your statement in your note that “A lot of the sources cited are interviews and therefor not independent.” There is only one Q&A among the sources and I was careful to only use it to cite facts reported by the journalist in the three paragraph lead, before the Q&A begins. I took nothing from the Q&A itself. And there are no other sources in Q&A format.

Of course he was also interviewed as part of other, standard articles, but I assume that’s not what you meant – journalists always interview the subjects of articles and then use their judgment to determine what quotes and facts to include in those articles. There’s no prohibition on the use of articles that interview biographical subjects as that would eliminate almost all journalism from Wikipedia.

I thought you might want to do a fresh review before I submit this again for reconsideration. I have left a comment on top of the page that reviews the points above. I’ll resubmit in a couple of days if I haven’t heard back.

Thanks again for taking the time to do a review and for considering taking another look.Garfield075 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Garfield075, the article has been resubmitted on your behalf. Thanks for taking the time to address the concerns, but there is no need to give me a preemptive warning to change my mind on the first review I've completed. It is a part of the AFC record and if another reviewer has a different opinion of my own they are welcome to accept it. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

About Draft:Super Bowl LIV: Electric Boogaloo

Hey MicrobiologyMarcus, we seem to have had an edit conflict on this page. Did you mean to remove the CSD template I'd put on there? I maintain that the title seems like a rather implausible phrase to refer to its target. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @TechnoSquirrel69, I did; my apologies I should have made that more clear in the edit summary. Although looking at the page history now, I will say that I'm surprised I didn't get a second edit conflict warning when I went ahead with the edit.

My good faith reading of the author's edits suggested to me that they probably meant to submit a redirect for creation, so my intention was to use the AFCH to leave the redirect declination notice at the top and the declination on the authors talk page. My reasons for this are two fold, of course AFC/R requires you to submit sources if applicable, but also I didn't think it would meet R3 based on the fact that it would also have a {{submit}} template on it.

If you think the page should still be speedied, by all means re-tag it, but that was my thinking. Thanks for the note, hope that helps — microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I agree: if I saw that in the mainspace without the AFC wiki project on the talk page, I would agree on a speedy tag placement or a nom to RfD. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications! I think I'll leave it as is now; in any case, our edits to the page now make its history substantive enough to be disqualified from that speedy deletion criterion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)