User talk:DoubleGrazing

Welcome to my talk page! Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing! Also take care of the following points: If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ":" Sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your message. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. Avoid personal attacks, do not troll or use this page as a chat room. Please, always assume good faith. If the topic is something personal, please email me and leave {{ygm}} on my talk page. And if you are impressed by my contributions, consider giving me some WikiLove. ⇒Start a new topic⇐

This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54

Hey

are you planning on blocking those accounts i templated as vandalism? i saw that you deleted the pages but didn't block the accounts. which were vandalonly/nothere 217.74.150.213 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to, no. Blocks are meant to be preventative, and I don't see what imminent damage we would be preventing by blocking a user whose last edit was several months or even years ago. These were probably just burner accounts, but if they do come back and resume the vandalism, they can always be blocked then. That said, thanks for finding and reporting these vile edits, they certainly needed deleting, no argument there! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined

What would you consider adequate for the article I submitted? Award nominations, references, over 37 million streams to their name. Also credits with artists who do have wiki articles.

Just wondering why such the speedy decline. Envyandother (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Envyandother: award nominations don't normally establish notability. Award wins may do, but the award itself must be notable enough, meaning must have its own article, which I don't think the MPG Awards do. Grammys are notable, of course, but then the award needs to name the person as the recipient, it's not enough that the person has worked on something that wins an award. In any case, these considerations apply to musicians and ensembles, per WP:MUSICBIO, which doesn't AFAIK include producers and engineers. Otherwise we're relying on the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which doesn't consider awards or any other such merits at all, it is solely concerned with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. (Having "37 million streams" is not a notability criterion under any of our guidelines, nor is that even mentioned anywhere in the draft.)

And then there is the problem with referencing. The draft cites two sources, the first of which is user-generated and apparently controlled by the person in question, so it is neither independent nor particularly reliable. The second is the MPG Awards website which only mentions Vaughan once, as a shortlistee. This leaves the draft very insufficiently referenced. Which source gives his DOB, or his birthplace as Redditch? Where does it say that he first started playing the piano, and later switched to drums? Or for that matter, which source says that "his work has been considered for 3 Grammy Awards"? Articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, and pretty much every statement you make, and certainly anything potentially contentious or of sensitive nature (such as DOB, which many people are rightly protective of), must be clearly supported by a citation to a reliable published source.

Hence, the "speedy decline". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. 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) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand what exactly is wrong with this article.

What exactly is wrong with the sources for article Soviet Meme Fucking Jackal? Can you respond with something other than a standard runaround? What depth do you expect from sources for an article about an internet meme? Or did you fail to read the sources in Russian? But the Wikipedia rules say that sources can be in any language. Is this discrimination based on language? Here is an article where all the links from the References list lead to something other than what is written. Here is an article where only one of the five links in the References list works. Here is an article where only one link in the Sources list does not work either. Answer honestly, do you think that the links in these articles cover the subject in sufficient depth? It turns out that the Wikipedia administration applies double standards, right? NikolayTheSquid (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NikolayTheSquid: three of your four sources are user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. The fourth is just a YouTube upload of the cartoon (actually, also user-generated, but we'll let that one slide). Therefore none of the four contributes anything towards notability per WP:GNG, and can't even be used to verify any of the information. That, exactly, is what's wrong with these sources.

My job as a reviewer is not to go hunting for better sources which may (or may not) exist somewhere out there. I evaluate the draft based on the sources it presents. If you know of better sources, feel free to cite them in your draft, and resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry about the reason behind decline the article of Professor Ajay Taneja

May i know the exact reason behind decline the article if possible could you please share with me how can I improve the article if possible. Saysky2 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saysky2: the problem was, and still is, that the contents are not sufficiently supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Required your assistance and verification

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

Could you please review this draft too Draft:2025 Tharali Flash Flood? Momosnep (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Momosnep, I don't do on-demand reviews. The draft is in the pending pool, someone will review it sooner or later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Momosnep (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Kent University

Why the draft is declined ? I wanna know the problem and solve it Monemt (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monemt: the decline reason is given in the decline notice, but I guess you didn't read that? TL;DNR = the sources do not demonstrate that the subject is notable according to the WP:ORG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read but if you check university like this Istanbul Kent Universityyou can see just 2 sources how this is accepted i have added 3 sources Monemt (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monemt: thank you for flagging up the Istanbul Kent article, that does not establish notability, either, therefore I have moved it into the draft space.

That article hadn't been 'accepted' by anyone, it had been published directly in the encyclopaedia by the author. It had not been reviewed by New Page Patrol yet, at which time it would have been moved to drafts, which is what I've just done.

In any case, we don't assess drafts by comparison to articles which may exist out there, but instead by reference to current policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i understand that but im trying to add more sources Monemt (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added every single source from times higher education and any thing you can search whats the problem sir what should i do Monemt (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monemt: what you should do is wait for the draft to be reviewed again (although I can already tell you now that it won't be accepted), and meanwhile read some of the messages posted on your talk page: one of them asks what your relationship with this subject is, and the other tells you not to remove again the earlier declines and comments from the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have any realtions with subject i wanna learn and this one is which listed in TR. wikipedia but not english also Bingölspor and some people so i just wanna learn and have one which accepted Monemt (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:23:36, 28 August 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by IceCreamToaster

• IceCreamToaster (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anchor Green Primary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don’t know why my article is not independent on the topic

IceCreamToaster (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IceCreamToaster: your draft cites only one source (twice), the school's own website. We need to see significant coverage of this school in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of it. Your one source doesn't meet any of those criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I just have to find more sources to fix my draft and make it better as a whole? IceCreamToaster (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IceCreamToaster: there is more to it than that.

Wikipedia articles should summarise what such sources have previously published. Your draft is clearly not based on any such source, therefore the information in has come from somewhere other than acceptable sources. If you were to now find some sources that meet the WP:ORG guideline and add those as citations, then you would end up with a draft where the content does not match the sources, which would not be acceptable either. What you need to do is start by finding appropriate sources, then summarising what they have published, and citing each source against the information it has provided (see WP:42 for more on this). You will almost certainly end up with a wholly different draft from what you currently have.

Note also that everything you say must be backed up by reliable published sources. Your draft is currently almost entirely unreferenced, therefore we have no way of knowing where this information has come from and whether it is true. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait when I want to specify a specific part of a source how do I do it? IceCreamToaster (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

smry dot ai

So you go to smry dot ai and then you throw the url of the article in there and boom. removepaywalls dot com also exists, allegedly. Polygnotus (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard rumours. :) No, I was being lazy, and saying I just couldn't be arsed, because a single source wouldn't be enough anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These rumors are all false and disgusting lies spread by the enemy! Ok. Polygnotus (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Media coverage section revised

Hello @DoubleGrazing:,  

I have revised the "Media coverage" section by summarizing key points from reliable sources and citing them properly.  

Could you kindly review the draft again to see if it now meets the encyclopedic value and notability requirements?  

Thank you for your feedback and guidance.

~~~~

The 'Media coverage' section is pretty pointless. It only lists media outlets where this orchestra has been featured – what encyclopaedic value does that bring? It is then left to the reader to visit each link individually to see what if anything is said there. If you wish to give the reader an idea of what reviewers etc. have said, please quote their salient points and cite each source against the quotation. That could also help establish this orchestra's notability, which in the light of the currently cited sources is at best borderline. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Nanasarna.pers (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanasarna.pers: I don't do on-demand reviews, sorry. But I can see that you have resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed in due course once a reviewer gets around to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devolver789

I see you just rejected this user's latest draft article. Note also that their other article is also up for AfD and it looks overwhelmingly like it will be deleted. When you look at the edit history for both, and especially at the style of editing, the complete ignorance of (or refusal to accept/comply with) process, and the almost total lack of edit summaries, I think we have an editor whose competence to edit Wikipedia and build an enyclopaedia has to be seriously called into question. I don't whether this needs ANI, but is there a way to stop an editor creating articles / draft article and limit them to just editing extant stuff? So far it's been a huge waste of multiple contributors' time. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just blocked the IP. It's very likely sockpuppetry. I hear very very loud duck quacking that just reinforces my point above. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the IP is this user logged-out, but who are you saying is whose sock? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose editing while logged out isn't sockpuppetry as such, unless it's done deliberately. On reflection I suspect it isn't, rather it's more of the same incompetence. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If not an outright block, then I do think you should consider a topic ban on the draft article. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're dealing with a young individual going through a Wikipedia learning curve and clearly getting somewhat frustrated by not getting their way. I don't want to be too heavy-handed, they are making mistakes but hopefully will start to learn from them. Admittedly, I'm not particularly optimistic, based on their progress so far, but I don't think it's (yet) beyond rescue, either. I'd say let's give them more time, but if you feel otherwise, you can always take them to AN/I (not saying you should, only that it's an option). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see he is not learning anything. Today he moved a his sandbox directly into article space without anyone reviewing it. Of course it was deleted, but that involved people having to clean up after him. Wikipedia is not a nursery for children. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lingad

I saw that you deleted this page per WP:G7, but I can't see a circumstance where doing so makes sense. It's a very straightforward list of the two people in Wikipedia sharing the surname. BD2412 T 03:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what, if anything, I was thinking, but as it was being requested by the user who had only recently created it, I guess I figured if they want it gone then where's the harm? (Why they've now decided they want it undeleted, I've no idea.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red September 2025

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most successful topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Women writers & their works | Microstates Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress ("moving the needle"): The WikiProject Women in Red homepage is usually updated weekly, using the Humaniki tool. Sadly, Humaniki has been out of action since 23 June. 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) 23:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Block

Thanks for the help! I've unblocked myself — I wanted to see if "unblockself" worked on PBLOCKs — so everything is now resolved. Now please don't take me to ARBCOM for unblocking myself :-) Nyttend (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: big mistake, pal! I've been waiting for years for an excuse to drag you in front of ArbCom, and now you've handed it to me on a platter... cheers! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft page!

Hello @DoubleGrazing! Just wanted to follow on from the questions I was asking about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanjib_Bhattacharjee.

I've added a few more references - please let me know if this improves the notability of Mr Bhattacharjee:

• Tripura Bhabishyat (2 August 2025) – A Bengali-language feature titled “Honoured in the Country, Son of the Soil of Assam”, detailing Bhattacharjee’s grassroots activism, UK-based reforms, and educational philosophy.
• Headlines(August 2025) – A digital article highlighting his British Empire Medal and cross-cultural contributions to road safety education, training, and community service.
• NRI Today – A profile titled “Sanjib Bhattacharjee BEM: Transforming Driver Education”, which contextualises his campaigns within the global NRI (non resident Indian) community and outlines his structured reforms in both India and the UK.

I’d also like to clarify that the Statesman article is an interview, yes, but it also shows the journalist explicitly stating that Bhattacharjee’s campaign is “gaining traction in India”, with outreach expanding state by state. Additionally, The Statesman is known for profiling individuals with demonstrable public impact, and their decision to feature Bhattacharjee suggests notability in itself (I believe).

Overall I do think Mr Bhattacharjee meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria through multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his public service and road safety advocacy. He is the recipient of the British Empire Medal (BEM), awarded by His Majesty The King for services to community safety in London. This recognition is covered in full-length articles by The Pioneer, Assam Tribune, Road Safety GB, Intelligent Instructor, and DIA, which detail his campaigns, training programs, and civic impact.

These sources are editorially controlled, fact-checked, and unaffiliated with the subject. No interviews, self-authored content, or promotional material are used to establish notability. Each article discusses multiple aspects of Bhattacharjee’s work, including his leadership in eco-safe driving, mentoring of instructors, and cross-cultural outreach in the UK and India. The subject is notable not just for receiving an honour, but for sustained national and international impact in public safety and education.

Appreciate your time reviewing this — happy to make further refinements if needed before submitting 😊

Thanks!! Flyhigh223! (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyhigh223!: I've had no real involvement with this draft, and don't wish to start now that it has already been rejected. If you believe evidence of notability is now available which wasn't considered earlier, you should appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer and/or, given that you resubmitted this after the rejection, possibly to the most recent reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thank you so much either way 😊 Flyhigh223! (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:18:41, 2 September 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Talha Sti

• Talha Sti (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fallego,com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which word or thing should i replace

Sti (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley High School (Louisiana)

You recently reviewed Draft:Crowley High School (Louisiana) after an editor accidentally deleted information. Would you mind doing the review again a second time? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability only by secondary sources

Hello DoubleGrazing, thank you for the quick review of my Draft:Believe in People! I'm usually writing for the German Wikipedia trying to get around the different rules in the different language versions. Am I right in my understanding, that there is no media independent criteria for relevancy? So as authors, we are reliant on media outlets to report? For me, that's interesting because the German rules are complicated as hell, but have specific rules for different areas. Nonprofits with a certain power (by members, employees or assets) are worth writing about, of course only if there is enough quality information (first and secondhand). How does WP:EN handles issues, where media for different reasons is not reporting? In case of Believe in People I myself don't understand why there is no coverage of this enormous donation. I could only find one other source with a philanthropic journal. Best NGOgo (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NGOgo,

Here on en.wiki, the rules are (per WP:ORGSIG) that every single organisation, without exception, has to satisfy the WP:ORG notability standard (which is essentially the same as the WP:NCORP one, and they're both somewhat stricter variants of the basic WP:GNG one). This is regardless of whether the organisation is big or small, old or new, global or local in scope, profit or non-profit, public or private or third sector, etc. The ORG standard requires significant coverage (not just passing mentions), directly of the subject (not of indirectly related matters), in multiple (= 3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. The independence requirements means that anything originating with the subject or sources associated with it are excluded; this means eg. interviews and anything where someone related to the subject is commenting on things, press releases and content based on them, routine business reporting (financial results, appointments, new products/markets/locations/partners, M&A, etc.), as well as any sponsored content (advertorials, churnalism, commissioned content, etc.).

If you cannot find sufficient sources to meet ORG, then it is quite likely that this organisation isn't notable enough to justify an article. That's not just because they don't pass the notability rule, it's also, and much more to the point, because there aren't then sufficient sources to base an article on. Wikipedia articles should be primarily (and in the case of companies and other organisations, almost exclusively) written by summarising what independent and reliable sources have previously published. If such sources don't exist, they cannot be summarised, and hence a Wikipedia article cannot be written.

Probably also worth mentioning that for organisations, notability is very much the exception, not the default position: the vast majority of organisations are not notable, and if that turns out to be the case with this organisation, then that is not in any way unusual.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Katie Lynch (nursery manager)

Hello. I have tried to add more references and depth in Draft:Katie Lynch (nursery manager); this is my first attempt to create an article. I can say that nursery professionals receive very minimal recognition in general. A British Empire Medal (BEM) is something unique, that may be enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). I believe I made a thorough research, and I cannot find anything more to add as independent sources, beyond primary information. I don't know what other publications, apart from local ones, can discuss nursery managers, and how such professionals can validate notability. For me, the BEM national recognition, combined with local publications about herself and the nursery (mentions, presentations), is enough; however, let me know since I gain experience to understand how to make articles. For example, in Draft:Rebecca Jensen-Clem that I also made, it is much easier to validate notability with sources because of the field (astronomy). That may be discriminatory against specific fields. I don't know, these are some of my thoughts, because I try to understand how Wikipedia:Notability (people) is justified in lesser-known fields, like childcare services. I cannot add anything else for Katie Lynch, especially from national publications, it's all I found after a thorough research and I thought is enough. Please let me know your thoughts, thank you! Chiserc (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiserc,

Yes, I'm sure you're right, in that people in the nursery (as well as primary and secondary education more widely) are under-represented in Wikipedia. I don't believe that is due to discrimination, as such, it's just that our definition of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, is based on coverage in secondary sources, and people in many fields simply do not get that sort of coverage. This isn't unique to the early years education sector, it also applies to many others, such as medical and healthcare staff, local politicians, campaigners and charity workers, and many other besides.

I don't believe the BEM is significant enough an award to satisfy the WP:ANYBIO #1 requirement. It is given to hundreds of recipients each year, and I fail to see how they would all be automatically notable simply by virtue of receipt of this medal. That's just my opinion, though, I don't think there is a policy or guideline on that, so if you wish to pursue this further you're certainly welcome to do so.

As I said in my comments when declining the draft, I would be very surprised if this person turned out to be notable enough to warrant an article, but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong on that. That wouldn't be in any way unusual, of course; after all, the vast majority of people are not notable.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the review! There are 2 BBC articles, one from local publication (Leicestershire Live), and 2-3 nursery magazines specifically for this person and her nursery as main focus, beyond simple mentions or comments on childcare. I have to say that if the definition of notability for people is so strict, then I don't think that the article will ever pass such requirements. So, I will abandon this draft, you can also delete it or I may do it.

Because, in the past, I was involved more in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I have to say that numerous articles with much less notability were finally survived deletion, and actually quite easily even with the smallest hint of notability. It is weird how Wikipedia works differently in creation and deletion of articles. I hope I will gain some experience to understand more on that. Thanks again @DoubleGrazing! Chiserc (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiserc: in a way, there is a difference between AfC and AfD in what comes to notability. At AfC we try to ensure that drafts are accepted if they have better than 50:50 chance of surviving a hypothetical AfD discussion. The burden of proof is with the draft author, to show that the subject is notable enough for the draft to be accepted. Whereas if an article is taken to AfD, the burden of proof is on proponent to convince others that the article should not be kept. Inertia is a powerful force, and sometimes articles are kept which should be deleted, simply because there isn't sufficient motivation to change status quo.

Also worth noting that our notability standards have increased over time. In the early days of Wikipedia, there was a 'land grab' situation, when articles were created, sometime with very shoddy standards, just to reach critical mass. A lot of these legacy articles still exist among the 7m+ in the English Wikipedia, which often causes editors to ask why their draft isn't accepted when something even worse already exists. But the current thinking is that we must now prioritise quality over quantity in what comes to notability as well as verifiability (I don't know if it was ever expressed in quite so many words, but that's what it boils down to), and that's why a draft isn't accepted today which probably would have been ten or twenty years ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

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

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benerbener, Eterin etc.

I believe they all should be blocked indefinitely, and here is the final straw: Benerbener added unreferenced death dates to 5 biographies: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Not a single source for anything. Also the claims were not even credible: an Olympic cyclist dying at age 48 from lung cancer? None of the Olympians' alleged deaths are verified by Olympedia, the death of the Norwegian person was not verified by a Norwegian search (I am Norwegian myself), etc. Benerbener also wrote that he died "in [[Ramsvik, Vestland]]" which was itself a hoax article. I see no hope whatsoever here. The answers in Eterin's user talk did not do anything to rectify the matter, on the other hand they admitted to being meatpuppets. Keeping them around for any longer would be disastrous to Wikipedia, their vandalism presents itself as factual and is really sneaky. I checked out the alleged reference "Dawny spór. Legenda o Zychym i Wisie" which they have added to Zychy and Wisy. According to Google, this publication does not exist. Geschichte (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already discovered this member of the bunch, and I also wonder why someone makes a (blank) user page for someone else. Geschichte (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Geschichte,

Yes, I've been going through their edits since I came across your G3 noms. In hindsight, I should have probably blocked them on the spot, and not tried to engage. Alas, I did engage, and now I feel (rightly or wrongly) that I can't really block them, unless and until they do something else wrong. The hoaxes and other problems have been, or are being, dealt with, and they've sort of promised (well, Eterin has) to get their act together, so I guess I should give them the chance to prove that.

I am keeping an eye on them, and as far as I'm concerned they are exactly one wrong move away from being blocked, the lot of them. If you spot anything, do please let me know.

Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And who the heck is Paul

DFO not know. (faces camera) DFO only pawn in game of life. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least you're a pawn. I mostly feel like I'm a draughts piece in a game of chess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my draft

Hi, I need to know more why my page is deleted whereby its in a draft? Need assistance as a new volunteer here. ResearchHaven (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ResearchHaven: I deleted it, because it was clearly made using LLM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was using chatgpt to help me write in a better flow. How can I fix it? ResearchHaven (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ResearchHaven: you need to write it yourself, in your own words. And you need to base it on actual sources, not fake ones like what ChatGPT gave you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, what can I do now? ResearchHaven (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ResearchHaven: the process for using sources to create article content is outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE. The notability guideline your draft needs to satisfy is WP:NCORP. Study both carefully, and then start by researching sources.

I still believe you have a relationship of some sort with this business, in which case you need to disclose that. See WP:PAID for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure if I should reply to you or 331dot. But I am not associate with this company. I have deleted the image as well. This company is same country as me and they recently did a big giveaway https://www.malaymail.com/news/life/2025/08/16/how-a-youth-who-cant-even-drive-yet-won-a-rm180000-byd-seal-in-the-bjak-mega-giveaway-2025/187811. I want to start doing a wiki page and thought to start with them since they have more information and well-known in my country. having my name at the bottom of the article will be my satisfaction. So, now how can I move forward with my new article regarding this company? ResearchHaven (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ResearchHaven: my advice would be to find a different topic to edit about. This one has been attempted so many times by undisclosed paid editors and sockpuppets, that I wouldn't go anywhere near it, if I were you.

But if you insist, that's your call of course. I've already given you the advice you need to prepare a draft. I don't know what else I can tell you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of interest regarding Milda Mitkutė article

Hello DoubleGrazing, Thank you for your clarification. I am not being paid for any of my contributions and have no personal or professional relationship with Ms. Mitkutė. I created this article because there was no page about her on Wikipedia, she is only mentioned in the article about Vinted, and I wanted to provide verifiable, reliable information about her career as an entrepreneur. MultiLingVoice (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MultiLingVoice: it would be much better if you replied on your own talk page, because anyone wanting to look into this question will be doing so on your user page / user talk page, not mine.

You say on your user page "When I notice that a subject does not yet have a Wikipedia article, I often create one." Yet you have not created any other articles. Fully 100% of your edits on English Wikipedia are about Ms Mitkute, as are half of your edits on the Spanish one. You appear to know things like her DOB, but are unable to cite a reliable source for that – so if the information doesn't come from a published source, where does it come from?

I have another question, possibly related, possibly not: is this your first time editing Wikipedia, or have you had other user accounts before? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, DoubleGrazing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

sksatsuma 09:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Hello, I recommend you to take a look at these two diffs, [6][7] both users are making the same request. Kajmer05 (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for what you do at WP:AFCHD, which can be a tireless and oftentimes thankless task :). GoldRomean (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On draft for Maria Fasli

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. I did this on a mobile device and references there are tricky for me. I'll try to add some later on the computer.

That said, I think notability is established by means of the role (vice Chancellor), which is the highest office in a UK University (see criterion 6 for notability for academics) . I know little to none on computer science to judge her academic contributions otherwise and my only reason to create the stub was noticing WP is 2 VCs away from the current one for this university. So, if I add references to her (former) VC job, will that be enough?

Askateth (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Askateth: the article states that she is pro-VC and previously acting VC; I don't think either of those is quite the same as VC proper. And since there is very little information in this short stub, I couldn't determine notability via another aspect of WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acting VC is VC for a fixed term (in this case, and often, a full year) rather than an open term position. They're the same role and have the same responsibilities. There isn't another VC while an acting VC is in the post. Perhaps if I add the specific dates of tenure this would clear the notability issue? Otherwise when the next VC is added it will look as if there was a full year of anarchy at this university ;-) Askateth (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Askateth: yes, I did think that the acting position might just about qualify, but decided to draftify all other things considered. If you can add more sources, and generally develop the content a bit more, that would be great. BTW, on second reading of the source, it mentions that Fasli has held the "UNESCO Chair in Analytics and Data Science". If that turns out to be a named chair (in the normal meaning of the term), then that could qualify her under NACADEMIC #5. Do you know anything more about this position?

A year of anarchy at a university sounds highly appropriate to me! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So as far as I understand, a named chair is normally a position, funded externally to fund a particular person and the Chair dies when they leave. AFAI can tell from info online, UNESCO Chairs (note the list there is out of date, since at least Fasli herself is missing) are purely honorific and have no funding attached to them. That does not mean that they are not highly prestigious though, and I would think it should qualify notoriety under criterion 2. It is unclear to me if she keeps the position once she has moved to Sussex, or if she moved with it. It seems to me from Essex's website that Fasli is still partially formally associated to Essex, since they did not take her off their website, which would explain why UNESCO hasn't changed the website. In any case, for notoriety purposes, it probably does not matter, but it means I need to be a bit more careful when phrasing. Askateth (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on publicly available information I think I've added as much as I possibly can. Let me know what you think and whether it can be published. Askateth (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Askateth: okay, thanks. That UNESCO chair might be okay, but (like the acting VC-ship) it's probably a bit borderline. Meanwhile, it seems her h-index is only 22, which in a buzzy field like big data and AI/ML isn't terribly high; not a deal-breaker, but another 'borderline' factor, I'd say.

Based on all of that, I'm happy enough to move this back into the main article space, but I wouldn't want to patrol it myself, so that it at least gets another pair of eyes. How does that sound? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing I am not sure how high h-index 22 is in Computer Science and I suppose it would depend on the specific subfield within CS she is in. In maths, an h-index 22 would be pretty amazing (most Whitehead Prize awardees in recent years have half of that or less). My reason to create the article is that I think we should have continuity of VC roles for, at least, all UK pre-92 universities and in this case I felt confident enough to create a stub without too much effort (and, generally, I am OK with some articles being a forever stub). So I was writing it based on her leadership, not her scientific contributions, which is why I added the most relevant bit of her tenure (the unprecedented redundancies). For the same reason, I would like to see her successor also listed but I don't feel confident enough to create her stub. Perhaps once she's been in the role for long enough to have a couple of articles mentioning her in the news I can give it a try.

As for patrolling, sure. Happy to add her to my watchlist once you move it to the main space.

Thanks for the help and constructive criticism! Askateth (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Askateth: I moved it back into the main article space. Because I'm autopatrolled, that means it gets patrolled automatically, and I didn't then want to unpatrol it because that sometimes causes problems with search engine indexing etc. So I'll leave it like that, and if someone takes issue with this, they can come and slap my wrist if they wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it's an obvious lie

I just proceed to speedy tags. Thanks for the trust. BusterD (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, this one is testing the limits of my trust, and it was never my strong suit to begin with. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Legal post for administrator attention

Hi recently active admin,

Just wanted to notify someone about a recent WP:legal threat posted at WP:BLPN.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#c-FinnDirector-20250915224100-Amanda Eliasch

This content, added without her approval, misrepresents her apolitical identity and causes reputational harm. Legal action is being pursued against those responsible. Wikipedia must remove this section to prevent further defamation and ensure no similar content is reinstated. Thank you for your immediate action.
— — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnDirector (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Blepbob (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Blepbob. The user is already blocked for edit warring, but I will post on their talk to clarify the legal threat issue (it isn't entirely clear whether "those responsible" refers to whoever hacked Eliasch's blog, or the Wikipedia editor(s) who added the offending passage to her article). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 70

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

• New collections:
  • Times of Malta
  • Africa Intelligence
  • Intelligence Online
  • La Lettre
  • Glitz
• Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Similarity with Arshifakhan61

Looking at Niharika Chouksey's deletion record, I am reminded of this banned sock master. The edits by YAKSH75 have made me think of it. Yet I have no concrete evidence yet to support an SPI. It woudl be a fishing expedition, which is deprecated, quite rightly. I have, however, given them the start of a Paid series of warnings. This also appears to be a CIR editor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timtrent: I agree, there is something not quite right with that one. I spent a fair bit of time earlier trying to dig into it, but couldn't find anything concrete, so far at least, although I didn't try particularly to match it with Arshifakhan61. All the socks in the Arshifakhan61 drawer are long since stale, the last confirmed CU match was over a year ago, so it would need solid enough behavioural evidence to justify a block. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on all counts. The paid warning route may be a solution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drex Lee COI

I was told to repost the article but the COI template is still there do I have permission to remove it? The original accuser Onel5969 said "Okay then, simply move it back. Makes sense." After I explained that it was not COI. Im sorry, I take wikipedia very seriously. Tzim78 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzim78: looks like it's been moved already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drex Lee

I am being treated unfairly.

• CoolEditer25 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Image in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have carefully checked the references again. The current citations include published works (e.g., Mufti Muhammad Shafi’s *Ma'ariful Qur'an*), official fatwa institutions such as Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah, and scholarly resources (e.g., Ibn Baz’s rulings). These are considered reliable and verifiable within the context of Islamic jurisprudence.

At present, these are the strongest available sources on the subject. If you are aware of additional high-quality academic or secondary sources, I would be glad to review and add them. However, the article is already based on the most authoritative references accessible for this topic. CoolEditer25 (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polite request

Hello, I created the article Joannie Bewa that was recently deleted. Could I please get a copy of the content in my user sandbox for future revision?

Appreciate it. Joannie Bewa (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joannie Bewa: sorry, but I won't do that. Your draft was totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. We are not like LinkedIn etc., where you can write your own 'profile' to tell the world about yourself, and say pretty much whatever you want; here that is considered pure promotion. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects with encyclopaedic value and which are considered notable. While writing about yourself is not strictly speaking forbidden, it is very strongly discouraged. It may be that if you are genuinely notable, someone will one day write an article about you, but that someone should ideally not be you or anyone associated with you.

Another thing: Wikipedia articles are composed by summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously published, and citing those sources against the information they have provided. Your draft was completely unreferenced, except for the single citation to the TechChange article about your award, and therefore it self-evidently wasn't based on any published sources at all. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with basically every material statement, as well as anything potentially contentious and all private personal details needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Even if you know, say, your date of birth (which I hope you do!), you cannot include it in the article unless it has been previously published in a reliable source.

For these reasons, your draft content is unusable, even with heavy editing; it would need to be completely rewritten. The best I can do is, I can restore it to your sandbox for a brief time, so that you can copy the contents into a local file (such as Word document) on your system, for use outside of Wikipedia, but I will then have to re-delete it. If you want me to do this, let me know, and then also let me know once you have captured the content so I can delete it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]