User talk:Paul W

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Emma Murphy draft resubmission – revised

[edit]

Hi Paul – thank you for your earlier review of my draft article on journalist Draft:Emma Murphy (journalist). I've revised the article to include multiple independent secondary sources (Press Gazette, RTS, Media Masters), removed or cited all uncited claims, and neutralized the tone in line with WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BIO.

Would appreciate if you could take another look. Thank you! Television journalist2025 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Television journalist2025. I think the article still needs further independent sources. Multiple assertions are unsupported by reliable indepdent sources. I also noted a broken link to ref 1, and ref 5 (Readly) is paywalled/inaccessible. Paul W (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul – I’ve revised the User:Television journalist2025/Emma Murphy draft with additional independent sources (Daily Mail, Queen Rania site, Mirror, Sun, RTS, etc.), added interviews with world leaders, and improved structure and neutrality per your earlier feedback. Would appreciate a second look. Thank you! Television journalist2025 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Television journalist2025. I see the article has been reviewed and rejected by other editors. I would have done the same. It does not help that you have ignored/deleted some of my earlier edit suggestions (some of which were formatting changes to meet Manual of Style requirements, as well as indicating where citations were needed). I will let others review any further updates. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Elisa Turner

[edit]

Thank you for your careful review of the Draft: Elisa Turner. I have made edits to the Draft in response to your questions regarding Turner's notability in the field of art criticism. Before drafting this article I referred to the criteria listed on the Notability (People) project page. Below you will find a summary of compliance with the Biography guidelines: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times 1. Biography introduction includes: "Elisa Turner is an award-winning art critic and journalist with a focus on international contemporary visual arts." The reliable secondary source cited in References is the University Press of Florida, book publication "Miami's Art Boom: From Local Vision to International Presence". Additionally this publication is an anthology of 100 articles of art criticism written by Turner. 2. Infobox Writer includes highlighted awards 3. Awards and Recognition section includes 8 professional merit grants, awards and honors. Each entry is cited in References with reliable secondary sources [State Department of Cultural Affairs; Miami Herald; Association of International Art Critics; several nonprofit Art Organization granting institutions] The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field 1. Turner's contributions to the field of art criticism are part of Miami's historical record regarding significant artists and contemporary art programs. The Public Speaking & Essays and Publications sections substantiate this in list format, without biased narrative that could be construed as promotional. 2. External Links also direct to Biographical statements (not self-penned by Turner) published by media outlets, which Turner contributes to - again in an effort to avoid subjective narrative in the article itself. 3. Reference and External Link has been added Miami-Dade Public Library System, Vasari Project Special Collection,which is a a reliable secondary source for Turner's contribution to Miami's art historical records

Before drafting this article I referred to several Wikipedia biographic articles on contemporary art critics for precedent. Selected Publications and Awards in bulleted list format are quite common.

In terms of the comment about 'refbombing': I cite all content in References with reliable sources to be fully compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. I did not realize this could be considered as excessive. I deleted the References which have repeated citations and or can be accessed in External Links. The published Wikipedia articles on art critics, with decades in the field similar to Turner, are Reference heavy, typically with 25-35 citations per article. NewQi (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NewQi. Can I suggest that you repost the above into the Talk page of the draft article? It will then be more easily found by other editors reviewing the draft. Many thanks.
Re: 'refbombing': there is no problem in citing the same source multiple times. When I merged the duplicate inline citations, I added a name to the ref so that it appeared just once in the "References" section, but it also showed a letter (a, b, c, etc) indicating it was being cited multiple times. Listing sources first/mainly in "References" is preferred (it's where a reader would usually expect to find them). Items already cited as references shouldn't usually then be additionally included as external links. I hope this helps. Paul W (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-submitted Draft:Elisa Turner and have responded fully on Draft Talk page to your concerns about notability. If you are in agreement that the subject meets the notability guidelines can you please remove the flag on the article, currently awaiting review. Thank you. NewQi (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
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) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Richard Coleman

[edit]

Hi Paul, thank you for your comments and edit. I have made some revisions but I struggle with regard to references / citations etc that are secondry as I have provided information from within the specific industry of note as this is where you would expect to find information and reference. As with a lot of entries you would not expect reference to be from a whole range of publications etc? And I beleive there to be more reference in my article than some other wiki entries? I look forward to learning more about this. Thank you. Mothybride (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mothybride.
  1. The draft needs to define the subject and briefly state why the subject is notable. In the case of an individual, it might, for example, start: "Richard Coleman is a British motor-racing executive ...." Dates help give context too - e.g. "He founded XYZ team in 20??"
  2. Generally on references, Wikipedia requires multiple independent secondary sources (it cannot rely on personal knowledge or what subjects or close associates say about themselves - be conscious of conflicts of interest - WP:COI); so long as they are independent, industry-specific publications, websites, etc, are perfectly OK. Wikipedia notability criteria (WP:GNG) do, however, also require that there be several references citing significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) from reliable independent sources. If there are no/few adequate references, or just passing/routine mentions, then the subject may not warrant a Wikipedia article (I also note at least two references - 13, 19 - that do not even mention Coleman; irrelevant references should be removed).
  3. Care is also needed with interview articles - may be primary sources (WP:IV).
  4. Comparing one article with another is rarely helpful - even in the same field, subjects and the extent and depth of sources can vary very widely (see also WP:OTHERSTUFF).
Best wishes Paul W (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul,
Thank you for coming back to me and thank you for your reply. I will take this onboard and see where I can imrpove the draft for publication.
Best regards,
Tim Mothybride (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

[edit]

Hello Paul hope you're well. I've noticed that you've edited extensively on the financial issues of multiple EFL clubs. I was wondering whether you thought it might be worthwhile to create spin off articles relating to ownership crises to allow for further detail/avoiding recentism issues on main articles. In the case of Morecambe for example, the spin off article could be named 'Ownership crisis of Morecambe F.C. (2022–2025)'. We could then condense the information on the main page's history section and link to the spin off article. I don't know whether an article like this would pass the notability test but was interested what your thoughts were. All the best Michaeldble (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michaeldble. Great minds think alike! As each club crisis has unwound, I have pondered on the same question, but each time have held back from creating a spin-off article pending resolution.
If the crisis resulted in the demise of the club (thinking Macclesfield Town), then details of its extinction are probably a suitable conclusion to the history section of the club article. On the other hand, if the troubled club survives (eg: Bury, Southend, Morecambe), I think we could justifiably spin-off the crisis period into a separate article (keeping a brief para and a Main link in the core article). In slightly different circumstances, I did a spin-off relating to Crewe Alexandra to create Sexual abuse cases at Crewe Alexandra F.C. after the latter began to dominate the core article.
Given the significant media coverage normally given to an EFL club in crisis, I think it would meet notability criteria while also helping provide a more measured view of a club's history (avoiding recentism) in the core article. Should we be bold and give it a go, perhaps on Morecambe? Or should we perhaps gauge wider opinion via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football? Paul W (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would definitely be a good idea as these sorts of events deserve proper coverage and would avoid dominating the main article. Regarding your final point, I think it's worth starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see what others think. Michaeldble (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done - see here. Initial reactions are somewhat cautious. Paul W (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michaeldble. I have been bold and created Morecambe F.C. financial crisis, then hacked out a lot of the recent content in the main Morecambe article. Please let me know what you think (I have also added a note to the wikiproject Talk page to let others know - the dates got dropped after one comment). Regards. Paul W (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To pipe or not to pipe?

[edit]

Hi, What do you think of MOS:NOPIPE? I've preferred to pipe in the past but some editors go around removing them so now I don't. Cavrdg (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of this advice until you pointed it out. I've always tended to pipe to the full article name, thus avoiding the redirect verbiage. Paul W (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Robinson wiki page

[edit]

Can you please remove all the "far-right" notations on his page? It's an inaccurate description for conservative activists. It's commonly used in Europe to dissuade others from engaging with these activists. Thank you. GingerGal63 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This has been repeatedly discussed (see Talk archive search), and the consensus is that numerous reliable sources use the term to describe him. Thanks. Paul W (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it's been "discussed." It's an inaccurate description without a proper definition of the term and who defines it. GingerGal63 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss this further, raise it on the Talk page of the Tommy Robinson article itself. Paul W (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alan Pemberton article

[edit]

Hi Paul - I am not sure if you have received any recent messages from me or seen the updates I have made to my article but in particular I would like to address the Notability of Colonel Alan Brooke Pemberton CVO MBE.

I respectfully submit that Colonel Alan Pemberton comfortably meets Wikipedia's notability requirements (WP:BIO and WP:GNG) based on multiple independent, reliable secondary sources all of which are cited in my draft article:

1 Duncan Campbell, an internationally recognised journalist (New Statesman, The Times, Guardian (1987/20010), ICIJ, El País, Le Monde etc) already noted on Wikipedia and at the centre of the infamous ABC espionage trials already noted on Wikipedia, devoted a 6,000/7,000-word investigative article largely to Pemberton, Pemberton's People and his intelligence front company Diversified Corporate Services Ltd (New Statesman, 22 Feb 1980). This is significant independent coverage of ADT, Pemberton and individually those referred to as Pemberton's People. [Copies of all the Companies House records including officer appointments for some of Pemberton's People (now inaccessible on the web) relating to ADT are available on Scribd but that is not a reliable website per Wikipedia.]

2 The Imperial War Museum holds a recorded oral history interview with Pemberton (Catalogue No. 80022247).

3 RTVE, the Spanish state broadcaster (equivalent to the BBC), devoted much of two full episodes of its leading espionage program Código Crystal to Pemberton and “Pemberton’s People” in March and April 2025. These are national broadcast sources subject to editorial control.

4 Official honours are recorded in the London Gazette (MBE 1968; CVO 1988) and being appointed an officer in the Yeoman of The Guard is rare. It is seen by many as an honour but in fact it is an appointment for selected senior officers. Officers are selected/appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Cabinet Office. Only lieutenant colonels and above who have (obviously) been deemed to have rendered long and distinguished service are appointed and they cannot apply for these rare positions of which there are normally only two in existence.

Together, according to my research, these demonstrate sustained, reliable, independent coverage across major international media, a national museum archive and official records. This is more than sufficient to meet notability under WP:GNG. The current draft should be evaluated with these sources in mind which of course have been fully explained in the footnotes to this article.

I optimistically look forward to your approval of the article. I have yet to format the citations but am having difficulty doing that in Wikipedia format. Best wishes - SapientiaLudens‬ SapientiaLudens (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SapientiaLudens. He appears notable, but approval of the article also requires it to be properly formatted, relevantly sourced, etc in line with the Manual of Style. I have spent some considerable time today fixing the article and its sourcing so that it might be approved if resubmitted (if you need further help with editing, let me know). Genealogical sources are generally not reliable as they include user-generated content, and the ARRSE forum is also not reliable - same reason (I have placed markers against these in their citations). I have not checked some of the book citations, but I am assuming good faith on your part that they reference Pemberton. The Britain at War page about the Italian battle does not mention Pemberton so really should be removed. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paul - Many thanks for all your advice and support. I have not resubmitted the article in case I mess up the order of the references but I am happy with it as you have redrafted it although I agree with you that the Britain at War page (albeit relevant to the battle) does not mention Alan Pemberton by name and therefore can be omitted if you choose to do so. Can you therefore now please approve and publish the article if you have no more improvements to make? If you need me to do anything else just ask and I will do what I can. All the best and thanks again for all your help SapientiaLudens‬ SapientiaLudens (talk) SapientiaLudens (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, SapientiaLudens. I saw that the article had been resubmitted (presumably by you when you weren't logged-in). I would prefer not to be the next reviewer; when I have made significant contributions to a draft after I previously reviewed it, I step back, so that I cannot be accused of "marking my own homework". It may take some time for it to be re-reviewed via the AfC process (there's a big backlog), but hopefully the next reviewer will look positively upon it. Best wishes - Paul W (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paul - Thanks again - I did not realise it had to go for further review but hopefully your changes to the article will help make the final approval more likely than not. All the best SapientiaLudens‬ SapientiaLudens (talk) SapientiaLudens (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I have made a mistake

[edit]

I moved the Alan Pemberton article to see what would happen and can't reverse it! In any event I am not sure there should even be any delay or any hint of doubt as to Alan Pemberton's notability. Why? It is so obvious that being appointed as one of the handful of officers in command of the Yeomen of the Guard (the King's Body Guard) is a most notable appointment.

The Yeoman of the Guard is the oldest military corps in existence in the UK, established in 1485, and holding office there is a position all high ranking officers envy. Appointment as an officer is also a mark of honour for having achieved an unusually significant rank and a record of long or meritorious service in the British Armed Forces et al. SapientiaLudens (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SapientiaLudens. I have amended the article title, but have refrained from any other input. It will hopefully be reviewed by someone via the New Pages Patrol process. Note: Notability in Wikipedia isn't about appointments, etc, but about having significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (see WP:GNG). Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, You state that “Notability in Wikipedia isn’t about appointments, etc., but about having significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (see WP:GNG).” On that basis, the article concerning Colonel Alan Brooke Pemberton CVO MBE clearly meets and clearly exceeds that threshold.
First, there exists a substantive 1,300-word investigative feature entitled Salesmen of the Secret World (1980) authored by Duncan Campbell. He was one of the United Kingdom’s most respected and long-established investigative journalists. In that article, Campbell offers detailed analysis and criticism of Alan Pemberton and his colleagues in MI5 and MI6. Campbell’s credentials as a recognised authority on intelligence and security matters are beyond dispute: his published body of work includes multiple books and hundreds of articles on security and espionage, many of which remain widely cited.
Second, in 2025, Spain’s national public broadcaster RTVE featured two separate programmes, El Archivo Burlington and El Hombre de Pemberton – MI6, within its long-running specialist espionage series Código Crystal. Since 2019, that series has produced more than 150 episodes devoted to major real-world intelligence operations, earning its producers reputations as authoritative commentators on global espionage issues.
Given these two high-calibre, reliable, and entirely independent sources, one British, one international, it is difficult to conceive what further evidence could possibly be required to satisfy any of Wikipedia’s stringent notability criteria. I fail to see any reason why the Pemberton article should not be published. Kind regards, SapientiaLudens SapientiaLudens (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SapientiaLudens. I was correcting your assertion about the Yeoman of the Guard making him notable. I agree with you that the coverage probably meets GNG (though there is sometimes an insistence that three high quality sources are needed - WP:THREE), but there needs to be a consensus that extends beyond you and I. Some other experienced users have edited the page and not moved it back to draftspace, so it might now become a permanent article in mainspace. Paul W (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paul - Noted thank you. I agree with you that enough experienced editors have looked at the article to now leave it as an article in mainspace. No doubt they and others will make further improvements to the article over time. I for one will now follow Sir Paul McCartney's advice and "let it be"! Thanks again for noting my comments - kind regards Sapie SapientiaLudens (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.

Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.

June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

September 2025 Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jack Hubley

[edit]

Yes, I understand what you're talking about. I managed to take out his personal life with no citation and I left just the whole career section with citations. Thanks.R2025kt (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R2025kt. I have responded on your user Talk page. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think if I remove the sentence and citation needed, I believe I can submit it again. I hope it will go through. By the way, I just removed the sentence that had the citation needed words due to it having no citation. R2025kt (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi R2025kt. In this edit (diff), you took out three CNs and did not address the problems in subsequent edits. Those statements still need to be supported by inline citations. Paul W (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Steven Glaser

[edit]

Hi Paul W,

Thanks very much for helping to improve this page.

May I ask, if it's not straightforward to get a citation, should that content simply be removed? For example, how does one prove where sa person went to University?

Many thanks! Promethiuswiki (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Promethiuswiki. If a key fact about a living person cannot be supported by a reliable independent secondary source, then it should be removed. Some individuals' university careers may be covered by the institution itself (in university publications, alumni lists, etc), or they be referenced in media or institutional profiles about the individual. Hope this helps. Paul W (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, I very much appreciate your quick reply. Actually, there was a reference for that particular citation required (in the newspaper article).
Many thanks. Promethiuswiki (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
are you available to put up new Wikipedia pages for a fee? Promethiuswiki (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Promethiuswiki, I don't do paid editing. (Note: any editor who accepts payment in return for editing Wikipedia articles would also have to disclose the commercial relationship (see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.) Paul W (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shame! We're almost neighbours - well, 15 minutes drive! ;)
Obviously, I understand the importance of disclosure. Promethiuswiki (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... Even if the payment is in the form of several pints of fantastic Welsh, or othe, beer! ;) Promethiuswiki (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but any kind of solicitation would be a conflict of interest (WP:COI), again which would have to be disclosed. I have created/edited articles about people I know professionally (a couple of MPs, past presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers, for example), but not with their knowledge or encouragement, and usually focusing on factual updates that can be substantiated through reliable sources.
Looking at the Glaser BLP, I think that - with a bit of work (and, obviously, inclusion of reliable independent secondary sources) - it could be accepted through the normal Wikipedia processes (these are grinding a bit slowly at the moment, with a big AfC backlog of almost 1,200 BLPs alone). Glaser appears notable for more than one thing, and he has worked for some notable organisations (are there media reports or published outputs from those projects that mention him?; PS: LinkedIn is a primary source). As we have an existing dialogue, I am happy to continue offering advice and support so long as I can remain disinterested. Paul W (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Paul. I'm much obliged.
My understanding is that LinkedIn can be used in certain circums. But quite a lot comes down to "interpretation" of rules.
Perhaps I'll still buy you a pint, one day... Promethiuswiki (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the next task will be to do a page on the "Eco-Rally".
If you have 8 minutes to kill, feel free to watch this video: Promethiuswiki (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.facebook.com/ecorallyfans/videos/929032287166659 Promethiuswiki (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just for posterity - the Wikipedia stuff - as plans are afoot to relaunch the event, with a focus on hydrogen. Promethiuswiki (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[WP LinkedIn guidance] requires the LinkedIn account to be a verified account. I would usually only cite a person's LinkedIn account if it offered additional corroboration of something detailed in another reliable source. Paul W (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. (The LinkedIn account is verified.) Promethiuswiki (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wonder if I could pick your brains further on a recent related incident?
Within the past couple of days, I received a message from a person I don't know, JAWED AMJAD, via (an unverified account on) LinkedIn, to say he is a Wikipedia Moderator, and that he has been given the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steven_Glaser page for review.
He gave me his number - +1 659 213‑6269 - which is in North America, rather than Pakistan (which is where he, apparently, obtained an engineering degree), and has asked for my phone number.
Looking at my Wikipedia draft page, I can't tell whether he is really lined up to be the person who can/ will publish it, as he claims.
I have two questions:
1. Is it possible to search Wikipedia for unpublished draft BLP articles?
2. And, is there any way of telling whether he truly is a Wikipedia Moderator, and whether he actually has been given the task to review my article, with a view to publication?
I'm sure you can understand why I'm cautious.
Cheers! Promethiuswiki (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: brief searches suggest that a Talk page with that username does not exist; however, he could have, I suppose, used another name. And, indeed, I understand that Wikipedia Titles are case sensitive.
My concern is if this was an elaborate scam to get my phone number (combined with everything else someone could ascertain from LinkedIn). Promethiuswiki (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: On top of all that, here when I did ultimately reply to his LinkedIn message, he replied almost immediately. That suggests to me that someone is monitoring closely for my reply message. A tad too keen! Promethiuswiki (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I'm on the verge of reporting the Linkedin account as fake. But I just wanted to hear from you first, SVP. Promethiuswiki (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot comment on particular individuals, but there are certainly scammers out there who claim to be able to get articles published in return for a fee (articles may get published briefly, but often quickly disappear once other editors review them). To answer your questions: 1. Any user can find unpublished BLPs and other articles via Wikipedia:AfC sorting; 2. Wikipedia does not have a group of people known as 'moderators', and 3. there is no process whereby individuals are tasked with reviewing particular articles (as an AfC reviewer, I choose which, if any, articles I want to review - nobody instructs me). I suggest you avoid anyone who offers to moderate a Wikipedia article for you. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed for your detailed and considered reply, very much appreciated. (As is you responding at this late hour of the day.)
I think in this case there was/is one than one "tell", so to speak. Use of the term "Moderator" (given what you've confirmed) was just one of several.
Have a good evening - what's left of it! Promethiuswiki (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
,,,and apologies for my typos. I sure you worked it all out! Promethiuswiki (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
if I can pick your brains again...
Re the text "He has authored and contributed to publications on the subject of hydrogen and fuel cell tech,[citation needed]...",
...could/should a citation simply be a reference to a particular article?
Thanks! Promethiuswiki (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine. As it says "publications" (plural), you would need more than one citation. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks!
Much obliged, sir. Promethiuswiki (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hedge fund article cleanup

[edit]

Hi Paul W, I would appreciate you reading through my recent request for Point72 Asset Management - Talk: Point72 Asset Management#Tweak language, subsection names. The article can use some polishing, and I have included some ideas for cleaning up and clarifying the language. I'd be happy to have your input here. Thanks. Mrsnewyork (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Draft:Finlay Tunstall

[edit]

Hello Paul W, thank you for reviewing my draft Draft:Finlay Tunstall. I saw that it was declined for not meeting notability guidelines. I’d like to improve it and wondered if you could advise me on what kind of sources or coverage would make the article suitable for resubmission. I’ve added BBC Sport and Lancashire Telegraph references, but I’m not sure if they are strong enough. I have looked at other wiki pages of footballers similar to the one i have designed for finlay and they seem brief and yet have been approved ? apologies as its my first time trying to do this and finlay is my son and wanted to surprise him for his birthday with a proper page i cxan give examples of other pages that i used as guidance and they have been approved also . Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! Tunster33 (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tunster33. Please don't use other articles as guidance; in recent years, the notability criteria for footballers have been tightened up, but articles previously created under WP:FOOTYN still persist but, if they don't meet the current guideline, WP:NSPORT, they may be deleted.
As it stands, the current draft about Finlay Tunstall is almost entirely based on routine/passing mentions (listings in team line-ups, etc, mentions of him by his clubs). It does not cite any significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV - ie: more than passing mentions or routine reporting) in reliable independent secondary sources. These may come in time - we often see articles that are created prematurely (see WP:TOOSOON) but which eventually get added to Wikipedia once the subjects are written about more extensively in reliable published sources.
I have reviewed several draft articles that were initially declined but which were eventually accepted once players became established and more independent coverage followed (I am, for example, also waiting for more reliable sources to talk about draft:Adrien Thibaut - a Crewe player currently on loan at Southport). I would therefore encourage you to be patient - if Finlay progresses, the article should eventually be expanded and published.
In the meantime, it would be helpful to address a few issues with the current draft - for example, reducing overlinking, focusing on key events (not describing every time he is an unused substitute, etc), aggregating starts and substitute appearances (and excluding 'unused sub appearances') in the career statistics table. I have rinsed through these changes. If you wish, I can glance back from time to time.
As Finlay is your son, you have a clear conflict of interest (WP:COI). It would be preferable for you not to edit the draft any further. You can, however, use the draft's Talk pages to suggest updates (ideally, including relevant links to reliable independent secondary sources). Please let me know if you need any further help. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) Paul W (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:53:50, 22 November 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Cullimorer

[edit]

Just trying to work out what else I need to include to get this page accepted. I've provided 12 references all mentioning his role and input into the production of the TV show including from Variety magazine. What else is needed to get this page published? Cullimorer (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cullimorer,
  1. The key is to add some references with significant coverage (not just more 'mentions'). The prominence of the publication (eg: Variety) is a factor - we need published content from reliable independent secondary sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking - but, perhaps even more important, WP:GNG demands multiple references that talk about Hughes directly and in detail and that are more than trivial mentions.
  2. Much of the current content is also mainly focused on Dreaming Whilst Black so it appears reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (per WP:BLP1E).
  3. Following on from the above, it may just be WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps Hughes will gain additional (and significant) coverage for future achievements unrelated to DWB - so it my be a matter of being patient and returning to the subject if/when further coverage is published.
Paul W (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation backlog drive

[edit]

Hello Paul W:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]