User talk:Gheus

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Gheus for accumulating at least 25 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re: Recent AfC acceptance

Hi, I noticed you accepted my recent draft, however you posted the message on the talk page of the usurped user. I’m unsure if this is the result of a faulty script being used or how it’s happened, but I just wanted to pass along that info so you’re aware as it may affect others in the future or past. Thanks. Haj (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haj Thanks for your note. Gheus (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yisrael Gantz

Regarding the review of Yisrael Gantz, you claimed that Gantz doesn't sho significant coverage, but I have to disagree. There are several personal interviews with Gantz, along with news articles focusing on him directly. עומר תשבי (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INTERVIEW. Gheus (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Review: Correns Corp.

Hello @Gheus, thank you for reviewing the article about Correns Corp. Could you please point out which of the sources are ok, and which are not ok and why they are not ok? I am asking this, because in my prior submissions, I`ve received the feedback that the coverage was ok, but not the impartiality. Thus, with the new sources, I was hoping to takle the impartiality successfully. I would highly appreciate to learn here in more details which of the 4 criterias were not me. Thanks in advance! Merged account (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to cite online sources and go through WP:CORPTRIV, WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exotec Rewritten

Hey @Gheus,@Ozzie10aaaa Could you check out the new article i wrote about Exotec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taccobaby/sandbox

I have tried to write it out of a neutral position, as you can see im employed by Exotec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taccobaby)

If i read the: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) correctly, Exotec should have the significant relevance due to the fact: 1) Multiple independent reliable sources 2) Major funding rounds & unicorn status 3) Substantial business milestones (public Financial Statements of the last 4 Years signed by EY, see draft (14/15) 4) Additional independent recognition

I dont want to make an Promotional Wikipedia page, just a neutral informative one, that why i didnt list all the Prices or similar, just neutral information, which maybe relevant for different regions,

My Conclusion: Under WP:GNG (companies), Exotec passes from a neutral pov Wikipedia’s notability threshold.

Please feel free to correct me, or lecture me, or express desires regarding the wiki page. Ill leave the draft in the sandbox before filing a new draft, incase theres some changes you'd want me to apply. Greetings, Taccobaby (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to resubmit. Gheus (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your feedback, i resubmitted the draft, let me know what you think.

Thanks in advance! Taccobaby (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Nair

Hello @Gheus,

I hope you're doing well. I'm reaching out to follow up on the edits I made to the Wikipedia article on architect Prakash Nair, which you recently reverted. Before contacting you, I took time to consult with a few experienced editors who’ve offered helpful guidance in the past on how best to contribute in line with Wikipedia’s standards.

To be honest, I was quite surprised by the full reversion of the edits. I spent considerable time researching the subject to ensure that the article was balanced, neutral, and thoroughly supported by independent, reliable sources. Your edit summary suggested I submit changes via an edit request as a paid contributor, but I want to clarify that I’m not a paid editor and have no personal or professional connection to the subject.

What’s more concerning to me is that the version currently live (post-reversion) contains promotional elements and focuses heavily on Fielding International—an entirely separate entity since 2019. This undermines the neutral tone expected in a biographical article and, ironically, seems to promote another individual more than the actual subject. I did note that another editor has since removed a promotional link, but I still believe the language and focus of the current version remain problematic.

In terms of notability, the sources I added support the subject’s qualifications under both Wikipedia:ARCHITECT and also Wikipedia:Author. These include industry awards, multiple independent media features, and published works.

I’m sharing this in good faith, as it’s disheartening to see substantial research and effort dismissed without any review or thorough review. It also raises questions about how Wikipedia safeguards its editorial process and prevents partial or outdated versions from persisting.

I’d sincerely appreciate it if you could take another look at the draft I submitted and consider whether it more accurately and fairly represents the subject’s career. Repsjared (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zoran Spasov - Zoff

Hi Gheus,

Thank you for your answer. I would like to mention that, looking at the sources of many writers, actors, singers, etc., especially from Macedonia, almost all of them are identical or the same (I would not like to list those people), but anyway, since I see that you have not approved the draft version, then you or other more experienced editors can help and all in order to observe the criteria.

Thank you in advance. (Иван Ж (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Иван Ж Hi - can you give me two best in-depth sources about them? Notability criteria requires independent coverage in secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Gheus (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- This is a publication about the latest bestseller of 2024, it has no promotional character and is exclusively about the book. https://ijassumsirma.mk/ This is a source from the Macedonian National Theater, that is, its drama repertoire. https://mnt.mk/en/ansambl/umetnicki-ansambl/akteri/aleksandar-mikikj-2#:~:text=Aleksandar%20Mikic%20was%20born%20on,ROLES%20IN%20THEATRICAL%20PERFORMANCES

(Иван Ж (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think these are secondary sources. Can you try find articles about them on these newspapers? Gheus (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, there are many articles from thosе newspapers. The texts are almost identical to the other newspapers, portals, because they have takeover the news from each other. ( Daily)

In addition several Attached links from the articles from the above-mentioned newspapers:

Weakly

and many others. Иван Ж (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

Hi there, I was assigned a mentor through the Teahouse, but they haven’t responded. If you’re open to it, would you be willing to offer a bit of mentorship or point me in the right direction? Even a quick bit of advice would mean a lot. Tattycoram02 (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tattycoram02 Yes, I can help you. Feel free to message me here. Gheus (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much x Tattycoram02 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:James Boran - question

Hi @Gheus,

You reviewed my draft, James Boran, earlier today. I was wondering if any of the sources in the article would meet the Notability guidelines for a good source. This is because I've found a new source on James Boran that I think is good, and if there is already one good source in the article, that means the article will have multiple good sources after I add it and it will meet notability standards.

Thanks, Surfinsi (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Hi. A few days ago you mentioned me in a communication here as an example. I don't know whether as a good example or not, but it felt good to me just like when teachers point out a student as a good example. And this mention lifted my mood so much for the past three days. It might not have meant anything to you but it felt great to me. I read in a guideline that paid editors should not waste volunteer's time by excessive communication so I try not to send any messages to volunteer unless absolutely necessary. But I really had to say this. Thank you so much. I am very grateful for the feeling your message brought to me. HRShami (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HRShami Thank you so much for your hard work! I didn't realize this meant so much to you. It was obviously highlighted as a great example for other paid editors to follow. If you don't mind, I'll continue to share your profile to other paid editors as a reference to follow. Gheus (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It will be an honor and a confirmation that I am doing this right. I will do my best to honor the trust you have shown. Thank you so much! HRShami (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afc Review: Edmund W. Roberts

Hello @Gheus,

Thank you for reviewing this article earlier this month and noting that it needed secondary, reliable, published sources that are not just passing mentions about the subject. I added several such secondary sources published from the early 1900's to well after the subject's death, which I'm sure now meet the requirements. I've kept the primary sources only for minor details not mentioned in secondary sources, and then only keeping it straightforward and according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Please let me know what you think. Thanks for your help! Brownthrasher33 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Roy William Ide III

I'm disappointed that this was rejected. Ide was president of the American Bar Association. There was a full page obituary in its journal. There are multiple sources verifying that he was president. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian I will review it again after some research. I think it is almost notable. Gheus (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Bearian (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding COI & UPE tags to pages

Curtesy ping of @David Eppstein. @Gheus, after noting that you also tagged Draft:Cavli Wireless for UPE, I did a little due diligence. I see that you have very recently tagged Stevan Lee Mraovitch for UPE, tagged Draft:Damon Vickers with {{Paid contributions}} and Russ Shaw for COI. In none of these cases can I see any indications of user blocks, notifications on their talk pages or any verification of these tags.

According to the policy at WP:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest the recommended approach is to, quoting, "raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the dispute resolution policy, citing this guideline." (WP:COICOIN).

Can you please explain why you are adding so many COI/UPE/PE tags to pages and not following the recommended procedure. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent solid evidence regarding Draft:Cavli Wireless to WP:COIVRT. @Extraordinary Writ:, @Bilby:, @331dot: may review the report shortly and will glock the account - they often review my reports and can confirm that I go to great lengths to provide clear and thorough evidence when adding such tags. Regarding the recommended procedure, I have asked for advice at WT:NPP and will follow it. Gheus (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably going to be a bit before I can get into the VRT system. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Draft: John Henderson Reid

Dear Gheus

Fist of all, thank you so much for taking the time to review the article draft on Dr John Henderson Reid and for your message. I have reviewed and edited the article for neutral tone, consistency, grammar and added a few references. I would like to respectfully appeal the decision regarding notability, as the subject clearly meets the criteria under both ANYBIO and Academics through nationally recognised awards, impactful publications, major media coverage, and sustained contributions to medical and archaeological research. Please see the evidence as follows -which include the article you found which was already cited in the article-.

1. Major Public and Professional Honors

Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the 2023 Birthday Honours of King Charles III’s, awarded for services to heritage and culture. This is a high-profile national honor directly published in The London Gazette
Viscount Crookshank Medal (2012) from the Royal College of Radiologists – a prestigious professional award within medical imaging.

These recognitions fulfil the ANYBIO criterion of receiving well-known, significant awards from independent bodies.

2. Academic and Medical Leadership

Specialist UN leadership role: He led a specialist UN/IAEA group on pulmonary embolism diagnosis —demonstrating academic and medical eminence.
Held prominent national roles including:
- President of Scottish Radiological Society (2012–2014)
- Radiology Adviser to the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland (1997–2003)
- Featured Crookshank Lecturer, Royal College of Radiologists (2012)

Dr Reid was also senior consultant at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and an Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. These roles reflect sustained, cited academic distinction and professional influence at the national and international level.

3. Archaeological Contributions with Long-Term Impact and Public Recognition

Co-director of the Burnswark Project (2015–17): which reshaped understanding of Roman siege warfare in Scotland.
Co-authored peer-reviewed research identifying the world’s first known whistling sling bullets, experimentally verified.
BBC News (2024) featured his team’s pioneering use of forensic ballistics and 3D modelling to reconstruct the Roman assault on Burnswark – described as one of the most advanced reconstructions of ancient conflict attempted in Britain to date.

These contributions are widely covered in secondary sources, including BBC, Live Science, National Geographic and Current Archaeology, demonstrating enduring scholarly and public impact.

These publications attest that his contributions are “widely recognized and enduring”, per ANYBIO.

4. Published Works and Media Engagement

Author of The Eagle and the Bear: A New History of Roman Scotland (Birlinn, 2023)—a substantial scholarly monograph on Roman-era Scotland.
Numerous peer-reviewed journal articles in The Lancet, Heart, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Current Archaeology, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Live Science, and others
Featured on numerous TV and radio programs including: BBC’s Digging for Britain, Channel 5’s Walking Roman Roads, National Geographic, BBC Radio 4.

This satisfies the Academics guideline for scholarly output, significant media attention and public scholarship.

5. Leadership & Institutional Influence

Chairman of Trimontium Trust since 1996, overseeing the redevelopment and 2021 opening of the Trimontium Museum and its HALO extension.
Under his leadership, the museum has received: Regional and National Thistle Awards (South of Scotland Thistle Awards for Best Visitor Attraction -2023- and Inclusion in Tourism-2024- ; National Thistle Award for Inclusion in Tourism – 2024) and Youth Borders Awards.

These activities demonstrate regional and national influence on public heritage education and inclusion in tourism.

In conclusion, Dr John Reid clearly satisfies notability guidelines:

Awarded national and professional honours
Published respected scholarly work: peer-reviewed academic publications and a commercial monograph.
Leadership in notable archaeological research with media coverage
Institutional and cultural influence in both sciences and heritage sectors.
Featured extensively in independent secondary sources

I would kindly appreciate if you could re-review the article and respectfully request a reconsideration of the article’s notability based on the above evidence. Or, I can also resubmit the new and improved version for reconsideration if that is a best practice. I deeply appreciate your insight.

Thank you so much Gheus for your time and consideration.

Warm regards,

Zarasyn

Zarasyn (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. Gheus (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarasyn, I happened to be on this page by chance, so I had a quick look:

An MBE is not considered as a very high award, there are too many awarded each year.
It is the Croockshank Lecture; in general lectures are not considered as major peer recognition comparable to, for instance, FRS.
All academics publish papers, this is WP:MILL. We look for 5K+ citations, and i see no evidence of that.
Being chair of organisations etc is not relevance. WP:SIGCOV is needed.
Worst, the draft is an extended CV/Essay, not an encyclopedic article.

IMHO the comments so far have been gentle. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Draft:ECOUNT Review Feedback

Hi Gheus,

Thank you for reviewing Draft:ECOUNT. Could you let me know which of the following criteria you think should be improved?

- In-depth

- Reliable sources

- Secondary sources

- Strictly independent of the subject

If possible, I would also appreciate any additional advice you could share to help strengthen the draft.

Thanks again for your time and guidance. Nflicks (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notability criteria, WP:NCORP, and cite sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Draft: Reginaldo Migliorança

Bchrca (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gheus,

I have revised the draft of the article, citing independent, secondary sources. How can I ask someone to check if everything is appropriate now, before I publish it?

Best Bchrca (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help on editing my Draft

Hi there! You recently edited my draft (Draft:HelperChoice) and I wanted tp get a more proper and concrete feedback on it. I've edited this draft a few times already and I've removed all of the sentences that might seem subjective. Perhaps can you help me pin point which part of my draft that specifically needs improvement? Thank you for your help! 183.178.93.33 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use objective tone and avoid marketing tone (see WP:NOTPROMO). Rewrite the draft based on the secondary sources and resubmit it for review. Gheus (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 04:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:43, 17 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]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Gheus, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoiximan

Thanks for the comments. Please kindly delete it (I do agree). G-Lignum (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tag the draft with WP:G7 template. Gheus (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Russell (insurance company)

Hi Gheus, you reviewed and declined my recent submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Russell_(insurance_company)

I am left feeling unsure exactly why this article was declined. You cite the reason that the references do not fulfil the criteria needed for a Wikipedia article. I personally believe that the references are all up-to-scratch. They provide evidence of the claims I have made in the article, they are mostly from authoritative and independent third-party sources that will have verified through fact-checking, and they are all in-depth, or at least in-depth enough to verify the claims made.

I am willing to accept that some sources may not be up to Wikipedia's standards if you are able to provide more details about which sources specifically these are, and how they could be improved. But, having compared my article to other articles elsewhere on Wikipedia that have been accepted, I believe my use of sources is robust and accurate.

I await your further feedback. JMaudsleyScon (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMaudsleyScon We cannot use trade publications (WP:TRADES) or routine news events (WP:CORPTRIV) to establish notability. You have to cite at least two in-depth sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Gheus (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Who is Forkintheroad5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Also, moving an article to draftspace generally doesn't constitute vandalism on its own. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen I will email you. Gheus (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus: Received. Feel free to email me with what you want, I'll be happy to help. Emails sent through the MediaWiki interface are private and cannot be read by anyone other than the recipient. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus: Replied. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus Not sure what is going on here, but I'm not seeing any overt vandalism. Also if you suspect sockpuppetry, that generally requires evidence. Please report at WP:SPI. Courtesy ping @ChildrenWillListen.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus: Replied again. Completely unrelated, but the first and fourth sources in Rosie (musician) aren't reliable and should be removed. The second source is flaky. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Sourcing requirements on Wikipedia have changed since 2023, so we need to find better sources. I created an article about her because of this film. Gheus (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus: Received, and thanks for letting me know about all this. I'll try to see what I can do when I find some time. Also, do let me know when you file the SPI. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rosie (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rosie (musician) 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/Rosie (musician) 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.

Forkintheroad5 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus: I have voted to keep the article. I just believe it needs work. I have gathered up some good refs to use but there are more out there. Sometimes some editors (IMO) just vote to delete based on the article and not what needs to be done, they thus ignore any provided useful refs. I wish I had time to work on it but sadly I don't. I believe it could be made better. You've made a good job with it so far and your efforts were worthy. Sadly, some folks are what they are, and the article gets nominated for deletion. There are enough good refs with what I put on the discussion page but sometimes unless they're a hundred feet high, they don't get noted.
Regards Karl Twist (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:10:06, 3 September 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Shlomo Slatkin

Shlomo Slatkin (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Draft Intro for Marathon Therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure if I've submitted my edits in the right place.

Shlomo Slatkin (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]