User talk:TheTechie

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people climate change COVID-19, broadly construed She should not be given alerts for those areas.

This user is busy in real life, and may not reply swiftly, and if they do, may reply in an abbreviated fashion.

Do you like my editing? Do you want to say hi? If so, please check out my guestbook here. Note: This message is also on my user page.

If I send you a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will be waiting. If you'd like, ping me. If you send a message on my talk page, I will reply here, and please expect to be pinged.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Brian Teeling. Your review comments made no reference to the criteria for assessing a new article, other than it had not been changed since the previous review, therefore I must assume that you endorse the previous assessor's view that the article failed to establish the subject's notability against the revelant guideline.

Please provide your judgement as to why the following sources fail to meet the criteria of signficant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

I hope you can affirm why these sources would definitely result in the article being deleted at AfD, so I do not have to submit the draft for a third review. Thank you, 51.37.79.136 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined as you had made zero changes since the last review. Please note that resubmitting right after declination does not usually result in acceptance. Your sources are also mostly from three specific newspapers: Irish Independent, The Irish Times and Dublin Inquirer. Please add a bigger variety of sources if you can. Note that the reason I declined was less about notability, and more about immediate resubmission. I believe that RangersRus was well within their rights to decline for notability. Reverting the declination template does not help your draft get accepted and looks more like disruptive editing. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Your sources are also mostly from three specific newspapers". Thank you for acknowledging that the subject passess the general notabilitiy guideline. Please amend your review accordingly and move the article to mainspace, as you have no reservations that it meets AfC criteria. 51.37.79.136 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

51.37.79.136, it's perfectly alright to ask an AFC reviewer for more details on why they declined a submitted draft. But you can't make demands of them to approve your draft. Plus, if you continue to resubmit this draft, it is likely to be reviewed by a different AFC reviewer. Please take the comments of the reviewers into consideration when improving your draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need secondary independent sources. If you have an article with interview and claim made from the subject the page is on, it makes the sources not independent. To just pass WP:NBASIC, the subject should have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles featuring quotes and statements from the subject are not precluded from being considered independent. It's standard journalistic practice. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not per the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia as I showed above. RangersRus (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You showed that above? Where? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NS which identifies types of non-independent source. You'll note that "in-depth profile" is not listed, and there is no mention of interviewed material making a source unreliable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a policy page. You should refer to policy and guideline page. See WP:NBASIC. RangersRus (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the relevant portion of WP:NBASIC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the subject should have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." RangersRus (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, your view that an article that quotes its subject fails the independent criterion is a minority position. Misrepresenting this as sourcing policy or consensus is wrong and not going to work. Initiate a discussion at WP:RSN if you want to achieve consensus or clarify this. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is by no means a minority position and has been widely stated by many editors during many discussions and AFD reviews where such sources were clearly declared not independent. This is all coming from experience learning from experienced editors and understanding the guidelines. If you have time, please do begin a discussion on WP:RSN with Brian Teeling sources as example and whatever the consensus be, we can then guide other editors to it. RangersRus (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Black Kite ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have explained to RangersRus why their interpretation of this notability guideline is wrong at the ANI discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also read the comment by administrator Aoidh at the end of this discussion about interviews. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Interviews. RangersRus (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to pure interviews like this one, not to profiles featuring statements from the subject. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just for pure interviews. RangersRus (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is; the whole discussion refers to published interviews and not to articles that include quotations from their subjects. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @Liz: can clarify as she submitted this discussion in RSN. Liz was this for articles with Pure interviews or also for articles with quotations from the subject? RangersRus (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear from @Aoidh too on what he thinks of this interpretation of his comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, sometimes you just have to admit you're wrong. Interviews can and do count towards notability, assuming enough independent transformative thoughts (WP:INTERVIEW) are provided to be considered a secondary source. Interview transcripts, where no secondary commentary is added, on the other hand, are unhelpful for notability because they are primary sources. But the mere act of interviewing someone, a standard journalistic practice, does not introduce a conflict of interest or suddenly make a source non-independent. This isn't the first time I've come across a questionable AfC review of yours. Please be more careful in the future. C F A 18:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok to be found wrong and will help with AFC reviews on similar articles going forward but I think this is best to end with consensus from multiple experienced editors and I am not sure what other AFC review you found questionable but we can discuss that other time because I want to stick to this topic and not divert the subject. I am waiting to hear from Aoidh because his comment and other policies have been widely used when discussing articles nominated for AFC review or AFD reviews or discussions amongst editors. The discussion is also on ANI. Sorry TheTechie for taking over your talk page :) RangersRus (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechie, please don't procedurally decline drafts that were resubmitted without change. If you endorse the previous decline reason and would've otherwise also declined, decline it normally. Editors are allowed to resubmit drafts if they disagree with the previous reviewer. See the recent discussion at WT:AFC. C F A 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of understand where you're coming from but fail to understand what the linked discussion contributes to your message. It references bots but I can't see anything about reviewers declining for this reason. Maybe I'm missing something? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that there is clear consensus to not procedurally decline drafts (whether it's a human or a bot doing so) solely because they have been resubmitted unchanged. Editors are allowed to ask for a second opinion and reviewers sometimes make mistakes. C F A 02:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contested the PROD you placed on Utopia (Tawfik novel). I know you placed it in good faith, and so please don't take anything I'm saying as a criticism! I just want to give you some advice on how to find book reviews, so you can add them to new, dubiously-sourced novel articles before releasing them to be indexed by search engines :) .

• Check Google Scholar. It picks up on lots of predatory journals and blogs, but it's a quick and easy way to figure out if an article is a candidate to be PRODDED or not.
• Check TWL! I don't know if you have access to this, but TWL tends to have lots of book reviews. I tend to look through the default EBSCO search, Oxford, Project MUSE, Brill, Cambridge University Press, and Gale for book and novel reviews.
• Check the author. In this particular case, the author, Ahmed Khaled Tawfik, happened to have an article. He's a pretty big name, especially in the Arabic world. Just because an author has an article doesn't mean all their books are notable, but in this particular instance it was a pretty strong indicator.

We're lucky, in a way- books tend to be very easy to prove notable on Wikipedia and they don't attract vandalism and BLP issues the same way other things do. And just because I reviewed this page doesn't mean you can't take it to AfD if you truly don't believe it to be notable! But I don't know what your search engines showed you when you did your WP:BEFORE, and I figured I'd try and help you work around it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. By the way, the only reason I PROD'd it was mainly because of the lack of notability template and the two sources which didn't seem reliable. I think {{Sources exist}} is a better template, and I will add that. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, looks like sources have been added in the meantime. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I went ahead and added those! Sometimes I post links of potential reviews to the talkpage, but I reckon that they're more visible on the front of the article. Especially to readers - they can go and view those reviews themself, and maybe (if we're lucky) they'll get annoyed that our article doesn't incorporate enough information from them and expand it themselves! (I personally practice a "create new editors through forcing them to fix my excessive typos"-style recruitment. At least, that's my excuse when questioned lol).

But you're right. Sources exist would have been an okay tag to use, upon confirming those sources do exist. I personally choose to only use that tag when I've pasted the sources onto the talk page, but YMMV. Given the dubious sources, draftification would have been acceptable- but the goal of the New Page Patrol is to improve the encyclopaedia, and I think that, in this case, adding the sources and moving on is the best result. Sometimes people do drive-by template things, though, so you always have to watch out for that! I've have NPP-ers tag articles for "excessive use of primary sources" because they misread the book reviews I'd cited, and assumed I was...citing the book itself. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had researched what you had mentioned. The article has 27 references from a variety of sources. Outside of a list of ships from the reference you mention, I am having trouble seeing what you are describing. Any details on this issue can help me fix this issue right away Starlighsky (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused what you're referring to. The declination was for potential copyright infringement for a well-defined URL, not for notability @Starlighsky. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to say is that there isn't copyright infringement. The article was created from over 27 references. However, if you see something that sort of matches something else, I am glad to fix it. Starlighsky (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. Yeah, either NewPagesFeed or Earwig said Copyvio but I wasn't too sure so I tagged it as potential copyvio but didn't mark it for speedy deletion. I will take another look when I get some time later @Starlighsky TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be my fault. If NewPagesFeed or Earwig said Copyvio, let me work on the article. I don't see it, but I can spend more time improving the article...which I have already done since this review. Starlighsky (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlighsky No worries. I've seen that Earwig and NewPagesFeed often disagree on what is a copyvio. Other than that, I think it looks ok. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that it looks okay. Does it look like it could be published? Starlighsky (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I will let another reviewer take a look at it just in case. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Starlighsky (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechie, you cannot blindly trust a copyvios report. Please make sure you are actually looking to see what and how much text is actually in violation; there were at most a few paragraphs that were copied, and not nearly enough to decline the entire draft because of that. I'm not really sure why the tool was saying 75% match when it was that low, but then again I rarely look at the given value when I'm doing a CV check. I do see that the cv has since been cleaned, so I have resubmitted the draft. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and apologies if my tone came across as overly harsh, it was meant as instructive rather than critical commentary. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Though who do you think it would be a good idea to bring the concern of NewPagesFeed potentially incorrectly tagging pages as copyvio to? I've seen so many pages (no exaggeration) that flag as copyvio in NPF but Earwig has a field day saying they aren't copyvios. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging something as a copyvio isn't a problem, because it gets a human eye on the situation. As has been shown the bot is good at finding copyvios but not evaluating them, which is why we don't have any bots that delete copyvios automatically. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I was just saying it's a bit annoying. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: I admit that sometimes I will patrol AFC in NPF and use tags such as "no citations" and "copyvio" to help other reviewers. It gets annoying to me when sometimes is flagged as copyvio, but Earwig says no. When I use the link NPF provides for details it claims there is no copyvio. Maybe I'm missing something and you could enlighten me :) TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely couldn't tell, I'm not on the NPR/Recent changes side of things often enough to know. WP:VPT might be a decent place to ask. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Page Curation uses CopyPatrol cases to tag copyvios. If it tells you there is no copyvio then someone has already closed the case as "no action needed" (i.e. the tagging was a false positive) or "page fixed" (they have removed the violation). CopyPatrol is essentially an automated Earwig — it uploads diffs to Turnitin, and if there is a match a case is created for human review. C F A 23:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA thanks! But my point is shouldn't it then remove the flag from NPF? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does, eventually, but it takes several hours. I'm not sure if the delay is intentional or not, but it doesn't really matter. If you see that someone has closed the case, then there is likely not a copyvio (anymore, at least). You could always check the listed source yourself against the article if you are unsure. C F A 16:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I understand. Thanks for chiming in! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, TheTechie! I just want to inform you that you have marked the page Draft:Organocalcium chemistry under review, but have done nothing to it for the past 24 hours. If it's taking you too long to review, you may always contact me and I'll review it. No hurry though! Pygos (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pygos I was waiting for an admin to delete a redirect as it was blocking acceptance. But no problem in asking :) TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]