![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Can the categories for AFC submissions by age be divided between pages that have previously been reviewed and rejected, and those that have never been reviewed? Those that have never been reviewed probably merit more immediate attention. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please complete this page? The editor disappeared. Thanks. Moshe_Prywes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B82A:F3F5:153D:C956:945A:729A ( talk) 00:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this the place to request an improvement to the AFC script? The improvement that I would like to make has to do with Comments made by a reviewer. At present, if a reviewer Declines or Rejects a draft, and enters comments, those comments, as well as a standard message, go onto the author's talk page. I would like to see Comments that are made by a reviewer go onto the author's talk page. At present it merely states that comments were made, and the comments themselves only go into the draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
What are the notability criteria for photographers? My thinking is that they may qualify either as artists, in which case they should pass artistic notability based on display of their works in museums and collections, or as journalists, in which case they should satisfy journalistic notability. Do other reviewers have thoughts or comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Edit filter 869 (deprecated sources) now also affects drafts. – 84.46.53.221 ( talk) 21:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The prologue is that there is a category of somewhat more than a hundred drafts that have the same titles as articles. It gradually builds up, and then it goes down by sometimes ten or so articles, presumably because an editor (sometimes myself) is working them off. Also for prologue, there are three main cases, all of which are described in a crib sheet. The first, and the hardest to deal with, is redirects to a topic within a parent article. These are the hardest, because they require discussion as to whether to spin them out, but this question is not about them (although I will be glad to read comments about them). The second is drafts that have also been put into article space. They are usually easy, because usually the draft and the article are the same or almost the same, and the draft can be redirected to the article. Sometimes the author of the draft created the article after being auto-confirmed.
The third case is people with the same name, and this question is about a subcase of them. The easiest subcases are if the primary target is already a disambiguation page. Then disambiguate the draft, and either decline it for a reason, or accept it as disambiguated and add it to the disambiguation page, or leave it for another reviewer. My question has to do with the primary target being a stub, with a hatnote to a disambiguation page. Sometimes it is clear to me that the stub isn't really the obvious primary target. Am I correct that it is all right then to be bold and disambiguate the stub, and make the disambiguation page primary?
Is this a reasonable place to discuss, or should I go somewhere else for discussion?
If I have everyone confused, I will explain further.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I have a general question, and then a specific question. The general question is more important. The first question is what should be the general approach of an AFC reviewer when a draft is for a spinout from an existing article, and there is a redirect from the draft title to the article. I have long thought that, unless it is obvious that the spinout is appropriate, the author should be advised to discuss the merits of splitting the article on the talk page for the existing article. Recently I have usually declined the draft with the 'mergeto' reason, but have noted that I am not saying that the article should be split (spun out) and am not saying that it should not be split, but that discussion should be at the talk page of the existing article. Usually this works, but sometimes the draft is resubmitted repeatedly without trying to discuss on the talk page of the existing article. The follow-up, but still part of the first question, is what to do if the author or proponents continue resubmitting the draft without trying to discuss on a talk page.
Questions about spinout articles commonly involve seasons of TV shows when there is a series article, episodes of TV shows when there is already a season article, albums by musicians or recording artists when there is a performer article, or songs in albums when there is an album article. Television is more contentious than music, because music has detailed clear musical notability criteria. The notability guidelines for television are not nearly as clear. What has been contentious in the past and is contentious at present has to do with starting season articles for seasons that are still scheduled rather than started.
I have worked on the assumption that Wikipedia is usually skeptical about "stuff" that is scheduled for the future, such as unpublished books and unreleased movies, and that future seasons of TV shows are similar. So I have not accepted drafts on upcoming seasons of TV shows, but have told them to discuss at the series talk page. The problem is that the television notability guidelines are silent on seasons in general, both past and future seasons.
The very specific question is about the example at hand, which is Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3). Both another reviewer and I told submitters to discuss at Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series). Some of the authors resubmitted tendentiously instead. Then User:CatcherStorm Rejected the draft, saying that season 3, which has not started, is not yet notable. Now some of the proponents are complaining. General comments? Specific comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Kvng wrote, above, about spinouts, that "we should strive at AFC to avoid getting involved in splits, merges, and rewrites." I agree with more than two-thirds, but two of those are clearly out scope and one needs discussion. We sometimes get rewrites at AFC, and they are one of the situations where already exists is applicable. Sometimes an editor submits a reworked version of an article to AFC. What we do is to explain that that is not what AFC is for. It is reasonable for a new editor to think that AFC can be used for reworked versions of articles, but we should and do explain (politely) that rewriting an article is done via discussion on the article talk page. My experience has been that editors who submit a rewrite usually accept the explanation that they should discuss on the article talk page. So I think that Kvng and I agree on rewrites. I cannot recall having seen a merge request come in through AFC, so merges are a non-problem. I think that Kvng and I agree on merges, because there is nothing to disagree about. I don't even know how an editor who wanted to merge two articles would try to use AFC for the purpose (but there is a first time for everything that doesn't work).
The issue has to do with splits. A lot of drafts come in to AFC whose authors generally do not know that they are requesting a split. In many cases, there is already a redirect for the topic of the draft. A draft is submitted on an album. There is an article on the band, and a there is a redirect for the title of the album to the Discography section. A draft is submitted on a song. There is an article on the album, and there is a redirect for the title of the song to the Track Listing section. These drafts are spinout requests, even if the author doesn't know that they are spinout requests. Because the title of the draft is the same as the title of the existing redirect, these requests go into Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. When I am working off that list, I mentally put the request into one of three classes. The first is Probably Should Be Accepted. The second is Probably Should Not Be Accepted. The third is Maybe.
The second class, those that should not be accepted, are not the problem. They can be declined, and if the author persists, other editors will agree. It doesn't really matter what reason to use. The third class, which is Maybe, is the one that causes controversy. I have learned that none of the reasons are understood as an instruction to discuss, so I have recently learned that I have to do them as custom, with instructions to discuss on the talk page of the parent article. Do other editors agree on that approach? Is there another way to tell the author to discuss and obtain rough consensus?
My remaining question has to do with a few cases that should be accepted, such as an album or a song that meets one of the musical criteria. Is there agreement that AFC should accept such submissions, regardless of whether they are technically splits?
So: How do we handle the possible spinout cases? So: How do we handle the clear spinout cases? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
How do you handle the case or situation where someone creates a Redirect to a similar topic, after the creation of a Draft? This question in relation to Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles? I ran across this scenario recently with Robert McClenon rejecting an AfC resubmit; between the initial and resubmit, someone created a redirect for the exact same name/title/url. And I'm pretty sure that led to some unnecessary conflict and confusion. PhanChavez ( talk) 04:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I see that User:Kvng and I are using terminology differently, and maybe we can standardize terminology. They don't see the creation of an article that replaces a redirect as a split, and, on consideration, I will agree, but I do consider it to be a spinoff, and the information pages about splits and spinouts describe a spinout as a type of split. Maybe the information pages should be revised to clarify that not every spinoff is a split. Do we agree that the confusion here has been largely due to differences in use of terminology? Do we agree that the creation of an article from a redirect is a spinoff?
The cases that I have cited are examples of the concept of a summary article and detailed articles, but where the detail is added on a topic at the time that the topic is spun off.
Should the decision of whether to create an article from a redirect be at the talk page of the parent article? (Sometimes discussion is not necessary, if the child article passes a notability criterion, as is often the case with artists, albums, and songs. Also, sometimes discussion is unnecessary if the child article can be declined quickly.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the proper way to deal with an article re-created in mainspace after a draft of the same article was declined? In other words, where the draft author ignored the reviewer and created the article anyway. WP:AFCR#Duplicate submissions doesn't shed any light. There isn't really an exact CSD for "declined draft recreated in mainspace". PROD would likely get removed if the author has already decided to bypass the process. And AfD just wastes everyone's time (I have previously done so and it meant half a dozen editors who did gnome-cleanup on the article and half a dozen who edited the AfD plus my initial time to nominate and closing admins to process). It can't be simply moved back, because it needs a histmerge and there's no exact CSD for that anyway. I have seen histmerge the other way.
I don't want to single out this exact case or reviewer, but it serves as a good example of the issue. User created Draft:Thoniyakavu Bhadrakali Temple, which was declined twice. They then copy-pasted it to mainspace at Thoniyakavu Bhadrakali Temple. (In this case, later a reviewer saw an article on mainspace and declined/redirected because the topic "already exists". That's an example of consequence of the author bypassing and confusing the process, which is my main question.)
It feels like it's too easy for someone to game the system this way. There's thousands of drafts, so reviewers will inevitably miss these. (I only saw it because my bot reports when it gets confused on AfC closure details.) Is there precedent or a guideline I missed? Do we CSD? Do we go full PROD/AfD. Do we histmerge back into draft or histmerge/redirect draft into mainspace and go through deletion? — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 10:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a WikiProject or discussion thread that deals with Drafts of TimedText files? I'm trying to figure out how to deal with Draft:TimedText:Eminem - Godzilla featuring Juice Wrld.en.srt Should it be sent to commons? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]()
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi All, Just to inform you guys that Earwing's Coyvio Detector has not been working a a few days now. I have raised phabricator:T243736]. Also see - Copyvio Detector not working @The Earwig' talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk)
I would appreciate comments from other reviewers on another case where there already is an article that isn't exactly on the subject, but the draft appears to be more specific than necessary. The draft in question is Draft:Botrytis blight. We already have an article on Botrytis cinerea, which is the species of fungus that causes the blight. The article is about the fungus, and also discusses it with respect to grapes. The draft is about the fungus on strawberries. I didn't think that either exists or mergeto was quite right, and had to do a custom decline to invite the author to edit either of the existing articles on the fungus or on strawberries. What would other reviewers have done? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was I all of a sudden removed as a participant. I used to be an AfC reviewer and someone must have removed me. Why? Nikolaiho ☎️ 📖 03:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I am reviewing this page Draft:METAdrasi - Action for Migration and Development. I found no issues with this draft, but I think the article title could be shortened to METAdrasi. Should I accept it or decline it? Don't forget to ping me in your reply. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
found no issues with this draftthen it sounds like it's Acceptable. Primefac ( talk) 19:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Can I do my annual whine about rejecting articles on clearly notable topics for minor issues? The case in point is Annette Thomas, who has been clearly notable for best part of two decades. Please, please, please consider accepting & improving, rather than just rejecting -- this one escaped, but many languish and get deleted G13. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
and the real problem questions:
Is Draft:Computer Forensic Laboratory (Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department) ( permalink) a record for the level of overcitation?!! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
More citations needed|date = April 2010}}
. I guess somebody didn't know what to do. Many other sections are unsourced.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved. For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.
we are discussing this proposal right now at:
* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace
Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options below. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.
thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 19:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I keep getting 504 errors when I access https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios - is that a known problem right now? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@ The Lord of Math: Can you explain your experiment here so that we're fully aware of it? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 14:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If I'd already waited a month for my draft to be reviewed I wouldn't take kindly to the clock being reset on it and returning to the back of the queue. I think there's another way of proving the experiment - with a Quarry query. But aren't we just proving what we already know to be the case? Lastly, do use an edit summary if making such a change so that other editors will understand what's happening. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this should have been obvious some time ago. I realized that, if a draft includes an image of the subject, one should check the metadata for the image. This provides useful information, such as if the image says Own Work, the draft is likely to be an autobiography or otherwise conflict of interest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Can the general public view draft pages waiting for an AfC review decision? If so, if someone wants to view it, do I email them the draft page url to find/access it? Thank you, Klossoke ( talk) 13:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)klossoke
I know nothing about programming or setting up scripts, so I don't know how feasible this would be...but, what do y'all think about having a category that is a collection of AfCs that currently don't have any references. This would be pretty useful because 99% of those articles could be quite easily declined and cleared from the queue. Sulfurboy ( talk) 15:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the gadget ennabled and I know I am inactive. If the only way of removing the warning box is to remove my account name from the list of participants then please do so. I do not know when I will have time to dive into AfC again. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 05:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"importScript('User:Tim Song/afchelper4.js');"
from
User:Shearonink/vector.js. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
07:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding on that, @ Primefac:. I am sorry if I was unduly impolite when expressing my concerns. Yes, please add me back to the list so that I may use the gadget again. MPS1992 ( talk) 02:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that any admin who has the AfC helper script installed should have the ability to review an AfC submission if they feel they wish to help without having to put themselves on the list of WPAFC participants. If, as stated above by Primefac, the reason for removing users from the WPAFC participant list (and thus giving them lots of warning boxes) is to try and fix the problems with compromised accounts, I'd note that of all the problems coming from a compromised admin account, reviewing AfC drafts seems fairly low on the list of security concerns. Can we get the warning notice removed for admins then? I'm going to remove the afchelper script from my account, but it would probably make sense to fix this for other admins. — Tom Morris ( talk) 13:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
When you want decline a draft as "not English" there's a field to add the language of the text (this would be used in the generated message). This field now contains oddly placed "1", I mean the figure. You've to clear it before typing the language. It used not be there if I recall correctly. Is this intentional? – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I decided to move Aleksa Spasić to mainspace because it seemed like a valid article and the page creator hasn't edited the draft since September and they did not submit their draft to AFC. Was this the right call here or should I have done something different? I don't mind anyone moving it back to draftspace if I made the wrong call here. I wanted to WP:Be bold when I saw the article, but I'm not sure if maybe I went a bit too far considering I'm not an AFC reviewer. Clovermoss (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Could you make a page about Meg, Beth, Jo, and Amy the graphic novel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.151.250 ( talk) 04:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I had previously suggested that we have a bot tag drafts with {{ AFC draft}} in cases where the user had removed the tag, as a large number of users had become stuck and couldn't find a way to submit their drafts for review.
I have another suggestion that doesn't require unnecessary tagging: How about adding a script like this one either to the interface or as a default gadget. On untagged drafts, it shows this banner:
This draft is not currently submitted for review. |
The script would only be loaded in draftspace and only displayed to non-extendedconfirmed users.
We have 10,000 draft articles that don't include the instructions "Click here to submit your draft for review".
– Thjarkur (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
the talk page for Deletion Review at WT:DRV#Reason_3 where we're discussing in what circumstances DRV should be sending petitioners to AFC. Your comments are respectfully solicited.— S Marshall T/ C 22:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
For those that use reFill you'll be glad to know it is working again. It had been automatically migrated to a new cloud environment but needed some manual TLC to get it working there. Thanks to BStorm_(WMF) ( talk · contribs) for working her magic. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
So we had a weevil invasion of AfC from Starzoner last night, and I did accept some before I realised how many there were. As a described species they do seem to pass notability, but as DGG noted on User_talk:Starzoner#advice "GNG says that if there is not sufficient information for a separate article, a combination article is preferable" however DGG also notes "every individual species can have an article, and I would never want to challenge that" - so what are we supposed to do? It does not seem correct to decline as they are "notable" but if we accept them all are they just going to get redirected/deleted. My opinion is the are notable and if they are accepted maybe some all with be slowly added too, but I don't want to put the effort in or lead Starzoner to a false conclusion if the consensus is the other way. Pinging JarrahTree as they did the project assessments the ones I accepted last night. Thoughts? KylieTastic ( talk) 11:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that the helper tool doubles some categories, see for example edits on Rauf & Faik by Missvain (Russian hip hop musicians) and on The Girl from Beskydy Mountains by Liance (Czech films). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 07:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I have established notability for this actress, but the name is create protected. Requesting removal of protection so that it can be sent in the mainspace. Thanks! Dial911 ( talk) 02:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Could you please remove me from all the afc stuff.
I have been inactive since being "homeless" through late 2018 and most of 2019.
I have just moved in to my new place (yaay), and won't really be active again for another few months.
Even then, I have a lot of on Wiki stuff to do, and in RL, and Afc would be on a back burner for another six months or more.
Cheers Chaosdruid ( talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Yet Another AFC Helper Scriptin the Gadgets section of your Preferences. Primefac ( talk) 09:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#General information about companies is not promotion which affects us. Are we being declining drafts too readily for being promotional? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move Legobot to the inactive bots section; the task it performs (updating Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wrongly moved submissions) does not appear to have been performed since 2013. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Upon reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback, it seemed many editors were disappointed/offended to have received 'low' ratings, and didn't know where to go/what to do to improve the article further.
I added an explanatory note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme, detailing what ratings mean and don't mean, so hopefully this gives those users better context/guidance. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I've added an "Improving your odds of a speedy review" section to {{ AFC submission/helptools}}. Basically, search for relevant WikiProjects and tag the talk page with their banners. This will put the submission in WP:AALERTS for those projects, which should help to attract qualified reviewers.
It's a bit technical for complete newbies, but the instructions should be clear enough that it should help in many cases. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AfD/Example, a page which this WikiProject may have interest or need, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AfD/Example and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:AfD/Example during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Reviewer instructions sets out the review process in five steps. I suggest, to avoid inflicting unnecessary work and disappointment on our authors, we conduct reviews in the order suggested. I've just rejected Draft:Terez Sliman for the third time. It was previously rejected for issues that don't need to be evaluated until step 3. This draft really should have been rejected at step 2. The early surfacing of fundamental notability issues would have saved the author from unfruitful work on tone, promotional and general referencing issues. Until notability is established, let's not lead authors to hope that making improvements, other than providing reliable sources with significant coverage, will lead to acceptance. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Primefac Good day. I would like inform you that I have changed my user name to sentence case - see here on March 18, 2020. I cant change it on the participante list, I would appreciate if you would do that for me as I received the notice stated that "AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Cassiopeia" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants." Cheers. Cassiopeia( talk) 23:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
![]()
![]()
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that accepted AFC submissions are not automatically marked as reviewed, so that others would have to review it. Would it be a good idea for AFC submissions accepted by autopatrolled users to be marked as reviewed as well? Thanks, TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 05:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to quickly decline some obvious fails (like Draft:Kevin Loibl) while I'm not an AFC reviewer? I've come across a few of these, and have a huge urge to decline it, but just can't. Must I register as a reviewer to be able to review some obvious SNOW declines? Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 13:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
![]()
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Am I missing something or is the "8+ weeks lines" on Pending AfC Graph wrong? Hovering over the end point the tool tip says 183, but there are 450 in the 3 months ago cat alone! Is it just showing the "8 weeks ago" cat, and should include the 2,3,4 and 5 months ones? Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The archive box at the top of this page only goes up to 2019 even though there have been archived threads this year. Can someone fix it? I tried, but nothing I did in preview looked like it fixed the problem and I don't want to mess around with what I don't understand. Clovermoss (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Article wizard#Preventing users from creating articles for topics that already exist.
Sdkb (
talk)
07:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This note has two topics. The first is in particular Draft:Hyperbolastic functions. I read this draft and understood that I wasn't qualified to review it, because it appeared to be about math that I learned fifty years ago and have forgotten. I asked for a review at WikiProject Mathematics. The review there was essentially that the references didn't establish notability in the context of mathematics. I declined the draft. It was then listed for review at WikiProject Medicine because the differential equations have applications in biology and medicine. The comment there was made by User:WhatamIdoing that some of the content should be in article space. Based on that comment, I will be accepting the draft (unless someone else accepts it first), and other editors can decide whether to merge the content somewhere. The second topic has to do with the reminder that the key criterion for AFC should be whether the page will survive AFC. I would prefer a slightly more restrictive test, in particular because that test is used by inclusionist critics of AFC as a cudgel to dump on the AFC reviewers who are only trying to do a job, but that is an important point. Sometimes a draft can be accepted because it belongs in article space, and other editors can decide where in article space it belongs.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
;-)
Hi all! I've recently made some changes to {{ AfC talk}}, used to congratulate editors with an accepted submission on their talk page. First, I've added a customized line explaining in a friendly/encouraging way the context behind the assessment that article got, since we were getting some feedback from editors for instance insulted at a C-class assessment not realizing that's a great rating for a new page. Second, I've added some code so that the line about autoconfirmed editors being able to create articles directly will only appear to autoconfirmed editors, as it's only pertinent to them. Unfortunately, due to technical limitations, it's not possible to substitute or even transclude this. Instead, it appears differently to different users, so if you're an autoconfirmed user delivering the message to a non-autoconfirmed user, it'll appear as if you're telling them they're autoconfirmed but won't appear that way to them (until they become autoconfirmed, at which point if they check their page again, it'll be there). So please be aware of that. Overall, I hope these changes will make for a better experience for newcomers! Sdkb ( talk) 09:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
There are two bugs with the AFC helper script. When I accepted this template, it put it in mainspace and titled it after the last slash. See the first move I did. I have manually fixed it with page moves. See page history here. Can anyone fix the script so that it doesn't make that mistake? Interstellarity ( talk) 13:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, I'd like to point out another possible issue/potential point to improve with the helper script. If a draft author changes name between the submission of the draft and the acceptance/declining of the draft, the draft author would not be notified. This happened here in my old user talk page, where I was unable to receive a message. Can this problem be fixed? Thanks, TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 01:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've done all my testing and concluded what I had to change.
{{New AFC submission/tools
|submit={{{submit|}}}
|author={{{author|}}}
|user={{{user|}}}
}}
to
{{New AFC submission/tools
|submit={{{submit|}}}
|author={{{author|}}}
|user={{{user|}}}
|rnd={{Rename detect|{{{user|}}}}}
}}
{{#ifeq:{{{rnd|}}}|{{{user|}}}||
*<small>'''Warning:''' This user {{{user|}}} might have been renamed to {{{rnd|}}}. Please see the [/info/en/?search=Special:Log?type=renameuser&page=User:{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{user|}}}| |_}} rename log] for details.
</small>}}
Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 05:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
'''Warning:''' [[User:{{{user|Example}}}|The user]] who submitted this draft...
to '''Warning:''' [[User:{{{user|Example}}}|The user {{{user|Example}}}]] who submitted this draft...
? Thanks,
TLOM (The Lord of Math) (
Message)
04:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Over the past couple of months, I've noticed that some of the messages given by the script in declining/rejecting an article are very helpful for editors (particularly the notability ones), but some aren't. Here are some improvements I suggest. If others could comment, that would be much appreciated.
1. "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia." Shouldn't this decline message be a reject message? If the submission already exists on Wikipedia, wouldn't it make sense to reject the article? And the text of this isn't particularly helpful either. Performing a history merge is a very complicated task, so perhaps a link to how to perform a history merge works would be helpful (if the submission is actually worth merging). The reject template already includes a big button to "ask for help" which is particularly helpful here.
2. "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." When using this rejection notice, I find that ~90% of the time is for articles that are blatant advertisements. So I think it would be prudent to keep this message, for the 10% of articles that aren't, but also add a more specific reject message that informs users that their submission has been rejected as an unambiguous advertisement/promotion (basically stronger language than the advertisement decline message).
3. I also think the decline message that reads "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information." isn't particularly helpful. We already have specific decline messages for the most common scenarios (hoaxes, dictionary definitions, news, plot summary) that make the general decline message unnecessary in most cases, and if a more specific decline reason was required, it really doesn't bother the reviewer that much to make a custom decline message. My main objection to how this currently stands is that WP:NOT is just a thoroughly confusing essay and leaves more questions than answers for the editor. So I would delete this one entirely.
If there seems to be a general agreement for some or all of these changes, I can draft more specific language. Sam-2727 ( talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see
User:SD0001/AfC sorting - it's a list of all currently submitted AfC drafts sorted by topics predicted by
ORES machine learning tool (the drafttopic
model was used). Such a thing was mentioned on this talk page before -
/2019_2#Technical solutions for eliminating backlog (@
Worldbruce and
Kerry Raymond:). (During that discussion, I explored ORES but unfortunately made a mistake in writing my script leading to the ORES API returning bogus results - and I thereby concluded that ORES was bilge. My apologies.) In fact, these predictions are surprisingly accurate, even for pages that haven't been tagged with any WikiProject tags. What this means is that manually adding WikiProject tags is now less important (though it still has some utility, such as supporting
Article Alerts, etc).
If this report is useful, I can set up a bot to update it periodically. Should I split the list into subpages? That would probably make the list easier to navigate when the backlog is high (its only ~2700 atm), and probably facilitate transclusions. As an alternative, I could host this on toolforge, like toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs. SD0001 ( talk) 19:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see a newer version of this report: User:SDZeroBot/AfC sorting. While the main page is as before, each section now also has a standalone page where drafts are listed with a lot of other details in a sortable table. Also worth noting that pages moved to mainspace will appear in green colour (via TemplateStyles). The next step is to file a BRFA and set up the bot to update the page daily via a cron. Before that, any further feedback / feature requests? SD0001 ( talk) 17:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
To even call this a film is a joke, and feels like promotion for the YouTuber more than anything. However the main concern I have with this is it's not just in really bad taste at this time, but would be irresponsible to help promote a video that misrepresents the COVID-19 symptoms. At a time when their is so much panic and stress in the world it just seams wrong. Is there a policy that would cover rejecting, at least at this time, for this reason? KylieTastic ( talk) 15:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a WikiProject for K-Pop? Now that I have the Rater tool, I can assign projects myself, rather than letting the New Page editors do that. Because I review the category of drafts where the title is the same as the title of an article, a relatively common submission is a K-Pop idol singer draft, where there is already a redirect for the singer to the group. What I would like to know is whether there is a WikiProject where I can tell them to conduct the discussion of whether the individual is notable. These individual singers, and songs in albums, are contentious, with strong opinions both ways, so any forum for discussion is helpful. Is there a WikiProject for K-Pop? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I recall seeing a draft getting declined and ultimately rejected as a non-notable topic. At the same time that draft is about a future film (or is it), and has enough prospect to be notable after 1 year or so. Would a new, good reject reason state that "it's not notable yet, but please resubmit when notable in about XXXX (entered by reviewer)"? What is your take on this? Thanks from TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 04:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.What exactly is wrong with writing an article about a football player reported by multiple sources to be an expected future star? The play is already notable as a subject of public adulation. ~ Kvng ( talk) 23:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
When a reviewer accepts an article, they are prompted to identify any WikiProjects, and are also prompted to give the article a class, typically Start, sometimes Stub or C. (I have a very hard time imagining a Class B article coming in over the transom of AFC.) However, sometimes the draft already has one or more projects. In that case, the script does not assign the article's class to the projects. It leaves the article as unassessed. An editor can then manually assign the article to a class. Is assigning the class to existing projects a feature that could be added to the script? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. A draft of mine got accepted and was moved to mainspace 2-3 days ago. However I was not notified of the fact. I came across another draft that wasn't cleaned up for a few hours after being in mainspace. Is there a way that reminds reviewers to automatically remind submitters and/or cleanup the draft automatically? Not everyone checks the draft on a daily basis. Thanks, TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 04:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The above two users have been reviewing drafts for two months now. I did a quick look through their reviews and didn't find anything blatantly problematic that would precipitate their being removed from the project. However, in the interest of "teaching the newbies" I would please ask that folks look through their contributions and give at least one compliment (i.e. what they're doing well) and (if desired) at least one piece of constructive criticism (i.e. things to keep in mind in the future). Thanks Primefac ( talk) 16:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I submitted a draft to Articles for Creation. My Talk page now has all these warnings and flags saying I am covertly editing Wikipedia in violation of the site’s Terms of Use. This feedback is a bit bewildering and confusing. Please advise how could I have been more transparent or less promotional?
I disclosed a conflict of interest on my user page and prominently at the top of my articles for creation submission at Draft:Theradome. Here is an example of my disclosure from the Draft:Theradome page:
I thought I was following Wikipedia’s rules meticulously. Am I not allowed to submit a page for independent assessment due to a conflict of interest? Kim Pankey01 ( talk) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose adding
Facepalm as a decline message for those times when you either 1) Could select more than two declines at once 2) Are too lazy to come up with a real decline 3) The page creator just resubmitted without any editing or 4) When you really just want to reject an article, but you wouldn't be able to fully defend that action.
Sulfurboy (
talk)
02:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:AFC/R has been getting very long lately (as of now, about 82KB). User:RscprinterBot currently archives the sections closed more than 24 hours ago, 1x/day. Should we change this to archive more frequently/sooner? (Ping to botop: @ Rcsprinter123.) Cheers, Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like our newest invasion is a series of articles about various obscure planes: Draft:Cierva C.7 Draft:Welch OW-4 Draft:Breda A.3
That's just a few examples of about 20 or so. Anyone have any specific guidance for this subject matter? Sulfurboy ( talk) 16:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard#Updating_Paid_COI_page_of_the_wizard. We need more input to help determine consensus, so your participation would be much appreciated! {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have recently noticed some articles being declined for notability, despite the presence in the refs. of a full editorial NYTimes obit; The criterion for acceptance at AfC is that it will pass AfD, , and we have never in the last ten years had afd delete an article with such a reference (from after the 19th century). (of course, there can be other reason for declining, like promotionalism ). DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
In User talk:Imzadi1979, Imzadi1979 brought up a point that I believe is worthy of discussion. The user suggested putting AFC into an "Article history" column along with other processes, like FA review or so. (Please refer to the captioned template for details.) That user also pointed out that since articles are no longer maintained by this WikiProject then it would be pointless to display an extra banner, as Article History could easily achieve the same. What is your opinion on this? TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 10:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
Article History}}
is not set up? –
Fredddie
™
16:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
{{ {{Infobox person | name = harishkumar bhadouriya | birth_date = 17/08/1993 | birth_place = ahemedabad, india | occupation = Businessman, Entrepreneur | birth_name = sachin
Here is a situation that I occasionally encounter, because I check the category of drafts with the same titles as articles. This of course means that the drafts cannot be accepted as such, because the article is already there. That category has a set of instructions, written by me and other reviewers. However, one situation isn't covered by the guidance. That is that the article is essentially the same as the draft, but the editor who created the article is not the editor who created the draft. The problem is that the draft was copied to the article without attribution. What should I do in this situation? Should I decline the draft because the article exists, and request a history merge? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello reviewers,
User:1292simon has been accepting AfC submissions without the script (causing users not to be notified), and they aren't an official reviewer yet. I wouldn't normally complain as long as they were correctly accepting/declining, but they seem to be missing a lot of the promotional language in articles they are accepting. I have left a note on their talk page, but they haven't responded. All the AfC participants page says on this is that "Editors whose usernames are not on the [participant] list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions." What action should be taken, if any, on this? Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Every time I look a a Wikipedia page an error message comes up to tell me that "AFCH could not be loaded". I have no idea what AFCH is or why this error message should interest me. What's going on? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
Is there a way to search the massive list of Pending AfC submissions? I wrote some articles about mobile education apps (e.g Swift Playgrounds) and would like to (try) review submitted articles on this subject. Is there a way to search by specific keywords (eg. app && education)?
I am close to 500 edits, contribute to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Apps and have a scientific background.
Kind regards, -- Coel Jo ( talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
incategory:"Pending AfC submissions"
at the end of your searchdrafttopic:film incategory:"Pending AfC submissions"
.
SD0001 (
talk)
05:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it be worth our time to try to keep an informal directory of fields of expertise that different reviewers have. E.g. I know DGG is really good at evaluating academics, Sam-2727 I believe knows a good bit about physics. That way if we come across a particularly difficult page that needs to be reviewed we have an idea of who might be good to tag for a second opinion. Sulfurboy ( talk) 00:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to join this project, but I cannot due to the reason that my account is only 86 days old and there are only four days left. Do I have to wait or can I still be accepted? 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 04:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I have recently reviewed several drafts on standards of the International Standards Organization ( ISO). What I would like to know is whether there is a notability guideline or some similar guideline about articles on standards. Sometimes the article essentially states that the standard exists, and I think that probably isn't sufficient to accept the draft, but I don't have anything in particular to refer the author to. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
To everyone who's been pushing at the backlog give yourselves a pat on the back we've finally got it down to a semi-reasonable level again. Onwards to < 1000 and none over 2 months. Stay safe KylieTastic ( talk) 17:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Is anybody else having trouble with the copyvios tool on the AFC submitted template? It's giving me a 504 gateway time-out. Sam-2727 ( talk) 19:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Keeping well in mind the risk of feature bloat, does anyone think it would be useful to add an option to suggest the creator add an image? I've been manually encouraging folks to upload a Fair Use logo for Notable companies, and if a topic seems cool and likely to have an image (like a battle that was probably covered in pre-1923 media) to encourage them to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons.
Does anyone thing this could be a useful AFCH feature, or as an interim solution we could make an "addlogo" template to quickly type onto the creator's Talk page? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Some days ago, I had reviewed this draft and moved it to mainspace as the Notability was assured by a number of references provided in the article. Later, it was draftified by an admin noting that there was a case of undisclosed payment and that 3 different users were working on the same subject at Commons, Wikidata and here on English Wikipedia; whether they were sucks or three different paid editors.
As far as, I could see, the COI issue of paid editing is clear as the editing user has disclosed this. I think that the draft should be moved to mainspace, but what should be done for the suck case — as the editing user has denied of being suck of the other two users.
Requesting some experienced AfC reviewer to sort this. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This draft has been submitted again. When it was previously submitted, it was declined for tone reasons. He is a controversial figure, and the draft appears to present his views rather than a neutral point of view. The current draft appears to me to be less non-neutral but still non-neutral. However, here is the consideration. I have no doubt that he passes both academic notability and general notability. The principal question at Articles for creation should be whether the draft, if an article, will be kept on Articles for Deletion. The draft, in its current state, could be taken to AFD with a request to blow it up and start over. The result of an AFD should not be Delete, because he passes notability. It could be to blow it up and start over, but what is in the current page that would be left on trimming would be a Start-Class article (not a stub). Therefore I think that it should be tagged heavily and accepted.
What does anyone else think?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I have accepted the draft with a tag. Also, the draft had comments that were introduced in the review process but were not removed by the AFC script. I have moved the comments to the talk page. (As some reviewers know, this is a common matter that comments get into an article and should either be removed or moved. My thinking is that, if in doubt, they can go to the talk page.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I just declined a blank draft, my first review ever, without the script. Please check if I've done it correctly. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 06:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please modify the script that responds to the pressing of the draft “Submit” button to make it include more information on the edit summary.
An example submit edit: [1]
My wishes:
This will make it much easier to review the history of submissions of the same draft. This will make it easier for reviewers of MfDs citing “tendentious resubmission” at MfD, but also, and more importantly, draw the draft creator, submitter, and other page watchers to the fact that it has been submitted and the record of submissions. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@ SmokeyJoe: Are you talking about the AFC Helper Script Gadget or about the code that is invoked when you click Submit/Resbubmit? I'm going to make the assumption you're referring to the Submit/Resubmit click link and not the Gadget. Because the link only opens a edit window to create a new section on the page, the functionality you describe in request 2 is technically impossible (editing a Draft page can't also edit a Draft Talk). A bot script could be created to splice over that metadata to the talk page, but for the current functionality of multiple AFC declines on the page is already a very good indicator if it's being tendentiously resubmitted (something I would think an editor who is putting a page up at MFD for that reason would have done their BEFORE on, but what do I know). As to who submitted the draft, there is nothing preventing a malicious editor from submitting a bunch of drafts on behalf of someone else to ensure that they declines go somewhere else. Obviously once the declines start rolling in, people will look to figure out why they're recieving so many messages and then the entire game will be up (and the malicious editor will be corrected). Hasteur ( talk) 01:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I was about to ask whether a nomination for an Academy Award was in itself sufficient to accept Draft:Sergio Diaz (sound editor). It has been my recollection that in some cases a nomination for an Academy Award is considered of sufficient standing to be on a par with some major awards. Then I looked further at the draft, and I will still ask the question in general about Academy Award nominations. However, he was the recipient of the Ariel Award in the same year, and the Ariel Award is considered by some to be the Mexican equivalent of the Academy Award. Whether or not it has the same standing as the Oscar, it is a major award of the sort within the scope of biographical notability criterion 1. So I will be accepting the draft, but would still like comments on nominations for the Academy Award. If I should ask this question at a WikiProject, please tell me where. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
So per a previous message I posted, I have created a rough draft for a page that we can add ourselves to as a directory for areas of expertise. I welcome anyone to edit it to make it look nicer/fancier/better; 40k edits and I still pretty much suck at formatting pages.
The draft can be found in my sandbox here
Few points of input I'm seeking:
1) Should we sort the page by subject and list editors under it? Or keep it how I formatted it where it's a list of editors with their individual area of expertise?
2) How should we get the word out for people to add themselves? Can we send out a notice to people who are subscribed to the AfC newsletter or is that inactive?
3) Where should the link for it be placed? I was thinking about a link under the 'Participants' tab, similar to how 'category' and 'list' is under 'Submissions', but I can't think of a concise one or two word title for it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This is now live Between no one above being opposed to the idea and multiple editors now having added themselves to my rough draft, I'm going to take that as all the needed consensus. I've added to the tabs with the title "by subject". That seems to be about as concise and neutral as I could come up with, but feel free to change it. I've also added a note to the top of the page inviting anyone to edit or format the page as they see fit, again, it's not one of my strong points. Sulfurboy ( talk) 02:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
When I review something that's been resubmitted, the first thing I usually do is pull up the history and get a diff of the changes since the last time it was declined. Would it be possible to add a button or link next to where it says, "This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review" which goes directly to that diff? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It is great to see Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 months ago with under 300 drafts now. Maybe we can all tackle a dozen or so from it and see if we can get it down to zero? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia moderators,
At the moment there is a page called Assyrian People, most of the users on the English version of Wikipedia are Assyrians who are trying to Assyrianize the whole Wikipedia. The Arameans are an apart nation, but yet they try to assyrianize all Aramean pages and even persons who identify as Arameans.
So could one of the mods give me the acess to create the page called 'Aramean nation', because there is no page containing information about the Aramean nation, history and culture yet.
Thanks in advance.
MixedButHumann ( talk) 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I am in the process of reviewing Draft:John M. Hickman. He has designed some notable buildings, including one added to the NRHP. I am trying to decide if that satisfies WP:ARCHITECT #4 or not. There aren't too many other secondary sources I could find. Hinging on rejecting, but want another opinion before I pull the lever. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Any update on getting this bio reposted? Thank you
Having trouble posting a pic as main pic from this recent article https://www.tapinto.net/towns/union/sections/arts-and-entertainment/articles/union-native-making-waves-on-daily-sirius-radio-and-espn-tv-shows
Thank you Carl Carlington ( talk) 21:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am not familiar with this process and have been unable to find the answer to my question in the instructions provided. I am a reasonably experienced editor and am confident with creating new articles, but I have just done some work to a draft that was created by a user who was not and who previously submitted it for AfC review. The article is Draft:The Lord of the Rings (TV series), and usually I would have gone ahead and moved it to the mainspace after my recent changes, but since it says not to remove the review template I wasn't sure if I could do that. Can anyone advise how I should proceed? Do I need to wait for it to be reviewed or can I use my judgement and create the article now? - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It might be a good idea if the "Submission is duplicated by another article already in namespace" and "Submission is a duplicate of another existing submission" decline reasons were also added to the "Reject", as I had to decline a submission that had been declined as a duplicate before, but was submitted again. (the other draft wasn't actually submitted, but it would still reduce the amount of drafts on the same subject) Being able to reject on those reasons could be helpful in reducing AfC load and also encourage people to work on the same page, rather than multiple versions of the same page. Semi Hyper cube 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission|D|exists|OTHERPAGE}}
which According to
Template:AFC_submission/comments will render the decline template and the text "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at OTHERPAGE instead". I'm pretty sure that exists in the AFC Helper tool
Hasteur (
talk)
01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Abhibedi999 and Draft:Pauline Johnson and Draft:Pauline Johnson is yet another example of how WP:AfC does not serve genuine newcomers, and the AfC culture is WP:BITEy.
The age old problems:
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The newcomer has thus engaged with existing editors, and with their watching at least silent consent have written a new article straight into mainspace, the way most articles started. What do you think of encouraging this " WP:SPINOUT pathway" at the top of the article wizard pathway?New editor adds information to their topic of interest on an existing article. This new information comes large, and survives the critiques of watchers of that article. The new editor (now autoconfirmed), spins out a new article, wikilinked from the beginning from the mainspace article, thus tempting watchers to have a look.
I will respond to some of the other points made by User:SmokeyJoe later today. I will comment at this time about his criticisms of the reviewers that I know it is very much the custom in Wikipedia to identify a group of (volunteer) editors that the author does not belong to, and criticize them either for not doing enough, or for doing their jobs wrong. or being bitey. or for not being sufficiently effusive in welcoming new editors. SmokeyJoe's comments are typical in saying that the AFC reviewers are not doing enough (not writing long enough declines, etc.), using templates, being bitey, and not being sufficiently effusive. Such criticisms are very much the Wikipedia way. That doesn't make them useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The newcomer is. If it's such a good policy, demonstrate it for us first rather than saying "You're doing it wrong" without giving us any demonstration of doing it right Hasteur ( talk) 00:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)nottreated as a human; There are no normal Wikipedia-style talk posts, whether on the draft talk page or the user talk page ; Messages aretemplated, template heavy, which makes it unclear to the newcomer on how to respondwell researched providing links to all the relevant Rules/Policies/Guidelines/Suggestions; Messages are on the draft talkpage itself, completelyunlike how discussion is done anywhere at Wikipedia...;
User:SmokeyJoe criticizes the AFC reviewers for commenting on the front side, the draft page, rather than the back side, the talk page. If he is criticizing the scripts rather than the reviewers, I agree, and some although not most of the reviewers agree. The scripts are designed to be convenient for new editors to see comments, even before they have learned how talk pages work, and are designed to remove the comments when an article is accepted. This is an interesting concept. It has the disadvantage that it doesn't get new editors accustomed to using talk pages. It also results in the new editors putting comments on the front of the draft with an editor rather than with AFC, which means that the comments are not removed when a draft is accepted, and have to be removed by a reviewer with an editor (as they were applied). Also, in many cases, the AFC comments that are removed when a draft is accepted are useful as thoughts about later expansion of the article, and should be kept on the article talk page. So if he is suggesting that AFC comments be on the talk page (the back side) of a draft, I agree, and maybe some other reviewers agree. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor who doesn’t understand the concept of a talk page, is not ready to be writing a new article.And yet WikiMedia and en.WP want to allow anybody to create and edit articles. Unregistered users can't do it in the main namespace due to WP:ACTRIAL and out of all the options a newish user creating an article in Draft namespace will be infinitely less Bitey than being tagbombed/CSDed/PRODed/XFDed into oblivion by New Page Patrollers. In fact one of the strongly suggested outcomes from NPP is to send the page to Draft namespace to improve. And what better way to help get a new editor assitance with what needs to be improved? Articles for Creation. Hasteur ( talk) 00:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that there are two proposals for how to change the scripts with regard to draft talk pages. Either of them would in my opinion be desirable. The first would be to have AFC comments, by both editors and reviewers, and decline messages, continue to go on the front, until the draft is accepted. At that point, the acceptance script should copy the comments all of the draft talk page as a visible record. (If the talk page becomes active, they could later go into Talk Page Archive 1.) The second would be to revise the script significantly and put the AFC comments on the talk page. It is true that many new editors do not understand talk pages yet. This would force them to learn about talk pages. The script could display guidance to the new editor telling where the talk page is. (There are a few editors, not many, who can't learn to use talk pages. Unfortunately, they are editors who can't learn to collaborate effectively.) Either change would be a good idea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe says that new editors should get their experience doing something other than trying to write articles. I agree, and every experienced editor agrees. Does he have an idea for how to try to steer new editors in a more constructive direction? Also, does he realize that not all new editors are here to contribute to the encyclopedia? Does he realize that many new editors come here either for self-serving reasons, to publicize themselves or their companies, or because they were sent here on misguided quests by instructors? The editor in question turns out to have sent here on a misguided quest, assigning students to write articles. The fact that a satisfactory article came out of it is a strange result of a strange misguided quest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I would advise User:SmokeyJoe to look at edge case and corner case to put this particular situation in perspective. An edge case in engineering, and AFC is information engineering, consists of pushing one operating parameter to a limit. A corner case consists of pushing two or more operating parameters to the limits. By extension, an edge case is a situation in which one aspect is unusual, and a corner case is a situation in which two or more aspects are unusual. The typical range of operating parameters are that the editor has some degree of clue ranging from zero to moderate, and some degree of self-interest ranging from zero to high. A conflict of interest other than commercial interest is in itself unusual, an edge case.
Typically, either the draft is clearly not worth considering, or the topic appears to be notable. Interestingly, it is the middle between a non-notable topic and a notable topic that is an edge case, because those cases are the ones that require more than minimal evaluation. Typical examples of topics that are easy to accept are species, and legally recognized named places. It is the middle that requires work by the reviewer, or a decision to leave it to another reviewer.
The example given in the edge case and corner case articles is audio speakers. An edge case that should always be addressed is high volume, because it is well known that some users will stupidly or obsessively crank the volume way up, and a system should be able to deal with stupid or obsessive users. In AFC, cranking the volume up is done by repeated submission. That is an edge case, and it is an edge case that reviewers have to be ready to deal with, although it annoys the reviewers.
This was a corner case because it was abnormal in three different respects. First, the subject fell in the middle of notability. She was found to be notable, but not obviously so. Second, the editor had a highly unusual conflict of interest because they had been sent on a bizarre quest. The editor was not misusing Wikipedia, but the instructor was misusing Wikipedia. Third, the editor cranked up the volume by repeated submission with what was already an unusual signal, and the editor blew out the speaker. The test engineer then responded by cursing at the user.
User:Sulfurboy says: "As such, this sort of just feels like a rant about a situationally abnormal draft." Exactly. This was an abnormal situation, and SmokeyJoe is drawing conclusions about the whole process.
I would also advise User:SmokeyJoe to look up scalability. If SmokeyJoe is proposing that AFC reviewers compose individual welcome messages and guidance to new editors, that would increase the amount of work to be done by the AFC reviewers significantly, and so would not scale properly.
Perhaps User:SmokeyJoe is saying that the system responded sub-optimally. If so, response of the system to a corner case is almost always sub-optimal. SmokeyJoe is also saying that the engineer responded sub-optimally by cursing.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I am a few days late in responding to the comments by User:Nosebagbear with regard to a discussion that has fizzled out, which is probably just as well, because it was really a dump on the AFC reviewers for no good reason. However, thank you for replying and getting the discussion back on track to fizzle out. You, Nosebagbear, refer to editors who come to Wikipedia in order to provide an article. The good-faith error by User:SmokeyJoe seems to be in thinking that we, Wikipedia, encourage new editors to provide an article. We don't. We have AFC and related processes because some new editors want to provide an article. It is true that some of them get discouraged and go away. That is unfortunate, but I don't think that they came in order to contribute to the encyclopedia. They came in order to write an article. If we can be more aggressive in discouraging new editors from attempting an article as their first effort, maybe we should. but the problem certainly isn't that we encourage new editors to attempt an article. Thank you for providing that perspective again. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
A critic once said of Marshall McLuhan that one read his writings with the strange feeling that here was an intelligent man who for some reason chose to masquerade as a charlatan. After looking over the comments of User:SmokeyJoe twice, I have the strange feeling that this is an intelligent experienced editor who is commenting as if he were clueless. He writes to User:Sulfurboy:
You must be new around here. … Bigger proposal: Stop encouraging newcomers to start their Wikipedia career with a new page creation. Tell them to edit around their new topic idea in mainspace first.
Since when does having edited since 2007 give an editor a right to talk down to an editor who has been here since 2012, and has far more experience at AFC than SmokeyJoe, and say that they must be new around here? And wouldn't telling newcomers that they shouldn't have submitted an article for review be even more bitey than declining it?
SmokeyJoe complains about templated messages. The templates have been developed because there are two reasons why they are appropriate, not just one. First, one or another standard decline message is appropriate in maybe 90% of the quick decline cases, especially those with clueless submitters. An experienced reviewer can construct additional templates, and then they will handle 97% of the cases, especially with clueless submitters. Second, many of the submitters are clueless, and it is unlikely that personalized replies would change anything. If SmokeyJoe doesn't think that many of the submitters are clueless, I invite him to visit the AFC Help Desk, which has a combination of reasonable questions, and entries that do not even ask a question in English.
A corner case was handled sub-optimally, and an experienced editor comes in and talks like a clueless visitor saying that we are doing everything wrong. Maybe they have caught a case of cluelessness from the subpar editors that we deal with in order to look for and find good submissions. We didn't say that the system didn't need improvement.
User:SmokeyJoe already stated his concerns in a more reasonable place, where they could be ignored with a minimum amount of additional cursing at the speakers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe complains about templated messages.
Hi. There's this draft, Draft:Peter Stanton, which says that the academic has won an award from IUCN and "was awarded the Public Service Medal (Australia) in the 1996 Australian Honours ceremony." These claims were sourced. However, there's not much else besides, with the last 11 sources all self-published works. I guess there's also a small tone problem (but not as much as needing a decline) but the academic clearly passes #2 and #7 of WP:NACADEMIC. I guess it should be an accept, a fix it myself and tagging. Am I mistaken? Thanks a lot :-) Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 09:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
An article needs to be created about the celibrity Kendra Spade. 2A02:908:183:39F:5491:5580:886:9E18 ( talk) 11:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Request has been created. 2A02:908:183:39F:5491:5580:886:9E18 ( talk) 12:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Vhora Mahir is a frist-class cricketer who played for Gujarat and goa in the Ranji Trophy. He was born in Anand,Gujarat,India. Mahir is a left-hand bastman and left-arm offbreak bowler. Wikipedia
Born: 2 August 1987(age 32 years), ANAND Nationality: Indian Batting style: Left-handed Role: Bowler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahir24 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 12:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I just declined a draft with a combination of decline reasons that I have never used at the same time before. The draft was in Spanish, and there already is an article in English on the subject. It also appears that there may have previously been an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, presumably in Spanish, but that it was deleted; however, I cannot read Spanish and am guessing at what the display means.
I welcomed the submitter. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
![]()
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I came across this draft, that was created by user Marcusllehman ( CentralOauth). This user is a confirmed sock of Tiago Ghidotti, which isn't blocked on enwiki yet. Hence this draft is obviously an autobiography. While doing random AFC patrolling, I found this draft, and unaware of the situation, I suggested some modifications. Soon after, another user Marcusllehmanbrz gave me a barnstar and heeded my advice. From the use of "we" in the barnstar, I suspected something wrong, launched an investigation and found what I just told you. I then summarily declined it and launched an SPI. Have I done anything wrong, or could I have done better at any point? Thanks Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 01:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Can the categories for AFC submissions by age be divided between pages that have previously been reviewed and rejected, and those that have never been reviewed? Those that have never been reviewed probably merit more immediate attention. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please complete this page? The editor disappeared. Thanks. Moshe_Prywes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B82A:F3F5:153D:C956:945A:729A ( talk) 00:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this the place to request an improvement to the AFC script? The improvement that I would like to make has to do with Comments made by a reviewer. At present, if a reviewer Declines or Rejects a draft, and enters comments, those comments, as well as a standard message, go onto the author's talk page. I would like to see Comments that are made by a reviewer go onto the author's talk page. At present it merely states that comments were made, and the comments themselves only go into the draft. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
What are the notability criteria for photographers? My thinking is that they may qualify either as artists, in which case they should pass artistic notability based on display of their works in museums and collections, or as journalists, in which case they should satisfy journalistic notability. Do other reviewers have thoughts or comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Edit filter 869 (deprecated sources) now also affects drafts. – 84.46.53.221 ( talk) 21:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The prologue is that there is a category of somewhat more than a hundred drafts that have the same titles as articles. It gradually builds up, and then it goes down by sometimes ten or so articles, presumably because an editor (sometimes myself) is working them off. Also for prologue, there are three main cases, all of which are described in a crib sheet. The first, and the hardest to deal with, is redirects to a topic within a parent article. These are the hardest, because they require discussion as to whether to spin them out, but this question is not about them (although I will be glad to read comments about them). The second is drafts that have also been put into article space. They are usually easy, because usually the draft and the article are the same or almost the same, and the draft can be redirected to the article. Sometimes the author of the draft created the article after being auto-confirmed.
The third case is people with the same name, and this question is about a subcase of them. The easiest subcases are if the primary target is already a disambiguation page. Then disambiguate the draft, and either decline it for a reason, or accept it as disambiguated and add it to the disambiguation page, or leave it for another reviewer. My question has to do with the primary target being a stub, with a hatnote to a disambiguation page. Sometimes it is clear to me that the stub isn't really the obvious primary target. Am I correct that it is all right then to be bold and disambiguate the stub, and make the disambiguation page primary?
Is this a reasonable place to discuss, or should I go somewhere else for discussion?
If I have everyone confused, I will explain further.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I have a general question, and then a specific question. The general question is more important. The first question is what should be the general approach of an AFC reviewer when a draft is for a spinout from an existing article, and there is a redirect from the draft title to the article. I have long thought that, unless it is obvious that the spinout is appropriate, the author should be advised to discuss the merits of splitting the article on the talk page for the existing article. Recently I have usually declined the draft with the 'mergeto' reason, but have noted that I am not saying that the article should be split (spun out) and am not saying that it should not be split, but that discussion should be at the talk page of the existing article. Usually this works, but sometimes the draft is resubmitted repeatedly without trying to discuss on the talk page of the existing article. The follow-up, but still part of the first question, is what to do if the author or proponents continue resubmitting the draft without trying to discuss on a talk page.
Questions about spinout articles commonly involve seasons of TV shows when there is a series article, episodes of TV shows when there is already a season article, albums by musicians or recording artists when there is a performer article, or songs in albums when there is an album article. Television is more contentious than music, because music has detailed clear musical notability criteria. The notability guidelines for television are not nearly as clear. What has been contentious in the past and is contentious at present has to do with starting season articles for seasons that are still scheduled rather than started.
I have worked on the assumption that Wikipedia is usually skeptical about "stuff" that is scheduled for the future, such as unpublished books and unreleased movies, and that future seasons of TV shows are similar. So I have not accepted drafts on upcoming seasons of TV shows, but have told them to discuss at the series talk page. The problem is that the television notability guidelines are silent on seasons in general, both past and future seasons.
The very specific question is about the example at hand, which is Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3). Both another reviewer and I told submitters to discuss at Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series). Some of the authors resubmitted tendentiously instead. Then User:CatcherStorm Rejected the draft, saying that season 3, which has not started, is not yet notable. Now some of the proponents are complaining. General comments? Specific comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Kvng wrote, above, about spinouts, that "we should strive at AFC to avoid getting involved in splits, merges, and rewrites." I agree with more than two-thirds, but two of those are clearly out scope and one needs discussion. We sometimes get rewrites at AFC, and they are one of the situations where already exists is applicable. Sometimes an editor submits a reworked version of an article to AFC. What we do is to explain that that is not what AFC is for. It is reasonable for a new editor to think that AFC can be used for reworked versions of articles, but we should and do explain (politely) that rewriting an article is done via discussion on the article talk page. My experience has been that editors who submit a rewrite usually accept the explanation that they should discuss on the article talk page. So I think that Kvng and I agree on rewrites. I cannot recall having seen a merge request come in through AFC, so merges are a non-problem. I think that Kvng and I agree on merges, because there is nothing to disagree about. I don't even know how an editor who wanted to merge two articles would try to use AFC for the purpose (but there is a first time for everything that doesn't work).
The issue has to do with splits. A lot of drafts come in to AFC whose authors generally do not know that they are requesting a split. In many cases, there is already a redirect for the topic of the draft. A draft is submitted on an album. There is an article on the band, and a there is a redirect for the title of the album to the Discography section. A draft is submitted on a song. There is an article on the album, and there is a redirect for the title of the song to the Track Listing section. These drafts are spinout requests, even if the author doesn't know that they are spinout requests. Because the title of the draft is the same as the title of the existing redirect, these requests go into Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. When I am working off that list, I mentally put the request into one of three classes. The first is Probably Should Be Accepted. The second is Probably Should Not Be Accepted. The third is Maybe.
The second class, those that should not be accepted, are not the problem. They can be declined, and if the author persists, other editors will agree. It doesn't really matter what reason to use. The third class, which is Maybe, is the one that causes controversy. I have learned that none of the reasons are understood as an instruction to discuss, so I have recently learned that I have to do them as custom, with instructions to discuss on the talk page of the parent article. Do other editors agree on that approach? Is there another way to tell the author to discuss and obtain rough consensus?
My remaining question has to do with a few cases that should be accepted, such as an album or a song that meets one of the musical criteria. Is there agreement that AFC should accept such submissions, regardless of whether they are technically splits?
So: How do we handle the possible spinout cases? So: How do we handle the clear spinout cases? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
How do you handle the case or situation where someone creates a Redirect to a similar topic, after the creation of a Draft? This question in relation to Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles? I ran across this scenario recently with Robert McClenon rejecting an AfC resubmit; between the initial and resubmit, someone created a redirect for the exact same name/title/url. And I'm pretty sure that led to some unnecessary conflict and confusion. PhanChavez ( talk) 04:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I see that User:Kvng and I are using terminology differently, and maybe we can standardize terminology. They don't see the creation of an article that replaces a redirect as a split, and, on consideration, I will agree, but I do consider it to be a spinoff, and the information pages about splits and spinouts describe a spinout as a type of split. Maybe the information pages should be revised to clarify that not every spinoff is a split. Do we agree that the confusion here has been largely due to differences in use of terminology? Do we agree that the creation of an article from a redirect is a spinoff?
The cases that I have cited are examples of the concept of a summary article and detailed articles, but where the detail is added on a topic at the time that the topic is spun off.
Should the decision of whether to create an article from a redirect be at the talk page of the parent article? (Sometimes discussion is not necessary, if the child article passes a notability criterion, as is often the case with artists, albums, and songs. Also, sometimes discussion is unnecessary if the child article can be declined quickly.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the proper way to deal with an article re-created in mainspace after a draft of the same article was declined? In other words, where the draft author ignored the reviewer and created the article anyway. WP:AFCR#Duplicate submissions doesn't shed any light. There isn't really an exact CSD for "declined draft recreated in mainspace". PROD would likely get removed if the author has already decided to bypass the process. And AfD just wastes everyone's time (I have previously done so and it meant half a dozen editors who did gnome-cleanup on the article and half a dozen who edited the AfD plus my initial time to nominate and closing admins to process). It can't be simply moved back, because it needs a histmerge and there's no exact CSD for that anyway. I have seen histmerge the other way.
I don't want to single out this exact case or reviewer, but it serves as a good example of the issue. User created Draft:Thoniyakavu Bhadrakali Temple, which was declined twice. They then copy-pasted it to mainspace at Thoniyakavu Bhadrakali Temple. (In this case, later a reviewer saw an article on mainspace and declined/redirected because the topic "already exists". That's an example of consequence of the author bypassing and confusing the process, which is my main question.)
It feels like it's too easy for someone to game the system this way. There's thousands of drafts, so reviewers will inevitably miss these. (I only saw it because my bot reports when it gets confused on AfC closure details.) Is there precedent or a guideline I missed? Do we CSD? Do we go full PROD/AfD. Do we histmerge back into draft or histmerge/redirect draft into mainspace and go through deletion? — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 10:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a WikiProject or discussion thread that deals with Drafts of TimedText files? I'm trying to figure out how to deal with Draft:TimedText:Eminem - Godzilla featuring Juice Wrld.en.srt Should it be sent to commons? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
![]()
![]()
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi All, Just to inform you guys that Earwing's Coyvio Detector has not been working a a few days now. I have raised phabricator:T243736]. Also see - Copyvio Detector not working @The Earwig' talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk)
I would appreciate comments from other reviewers on another case where there already is an article that isn't exactly on the subject, but the draft appears to be more specific than necessary. The draft in question is Draft:Botrytis blight. We already have an article on Botrytis cinerea, which is the species of fungus that causes the blight. The article is about the fungus, and also discusses it with respect to grapes. The draft is about the fungus on strawberries. I didn't think that either exists or mergeto was quite right, and had to do a custom decline to invite the author to edit either of the existing articles on the fungus or on strawberries. What would other reviewers have done? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Why was I all of a sudden removed as a participant. I used to be an AfC reviewer and someone must have removed me. Why? Nikolaiho ☎️ 📖 03:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I am reviewing this page Draft:METAdrasi - Action for Migration and Development. I found no issues with this draft, but I think the article title could be shortened to METAdrasi. Should I accept it or decline it? Don't forget to ping me in your reply. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
found no issues with this draftthen it sounds like it's Acceptable. Primefac ( talk) 19:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Can I do my annual whine about rejecting articles on clearly notable topics for minor issues? The case in point is Annette Thomas, who has been clearly notable for best part of two decades. Please, please, please consider accepting & improving, rather than just rejecting -- this one escaped, but many languish and get deleted G13. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
and the real problem questions:
Is Draft:Computer Forensic Laboratory (Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department) ( permalink) a record for the level of overcitation?!! Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 18:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
More citations needed|date = April 2010}}
. I guess somebody didn't know what to do. Many other sections are unsourced.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved. For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.
we are discussing this proposal right now at:
* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace
Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options below. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.
thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 19:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I keep getting 504 errors when I access https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios - is that a known problem right now? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@ The Lord of Math: Can you explain your experiment here so that we're fully aware of it? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 14:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If I'd already waited a month for my draft to be reviewed I wouldn't take kindly to the clock being reset on it and returning to the back of the queue. I think there's another way of proving the experiment - with a Quarry query. But aren't we just proving what we already know to be the case? Lastly, do use an edit summary if making such a change so that other editors will understand what's happening. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this should have been obvious some time ago. I realized that, if a draft includes an image of the subject, one should check the metadata for the image. This provides useful information, such as if the image says Own Work, the draft is likely to be an autobiography or otherwise conflict of interest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Can the general public view draft pages waiting for an AfC review decision? If so, if someone wants to view it, do I email them the draft page url to find/access it? Thank you, Klossoke ( talk) 13:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)klossoke
I know nothing about programming or setting up scripts, so I don't know how feasible this would be...but, what do y'all think about having a category that is a collection of AfCs that currently don't have any references. This would be pretty useful because 99% of those articles could be quite easily declined and cleared from the queue. Sulfurboy ( talk) 15:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the gadget ennabled and I know I am inactive. If the only way of removing the warning box is to remove my account name from the list of participants then please do so. I do not know when I will have time to dive into AfC again. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 05:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"importScript('User:Tim Song/afchelper4.js');"
from
User:Shearonink/vector.js. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
07:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding on that, @ Primefac:. I am sorry if I was unduly impolite when expressing my concerns. Yes, please add me back to the list so that I may use the gadget again. MPS1992 ( talk) 02:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that any admin who has the AfC helper script installed should have the ability to review an AfC submission if they feel they wish to help without having to put themselves on the list of WPAFC participants. If, as stated above by Primefac, the reason for removing users from the WPAFC participant list (and thus giving them lots of warning boxes) is to try and fix the problems with compromised accounts, I'd note that of all the problems coming from a compromised admin account, reviewing AfC drafts seems fairly low on the list of security concerns. Can we get the warning notice removed for admins then? I'm going to remove the afchelper script from my account, but it would probably make sense to fix this for other admins. — Tom Morris ( talk) 13:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
When you want decline a draft as "not English" there's a field to add the language of the text (this would be used in the generated message). This field now contains oddly placed "1", I mean the figure. You've to clear it before typing the language. It used not be there if I recall correctly. Is this intentional? – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I decided to move Aleksa Spasić to mainspace because it seemed like a valid article and the page creator hasn't edited the draft since September and they did not submit their draft to AFC. Was this the right call here or should I have done something different? I don't mind anyone moving it back to draftspace if I made the wrong call here. I wanted to WP:Be bold when I saw the article, but I'm not sure if maybe I went a bit too far considering I'm not an AFC reviewer. Clovermoss (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Could you make a page about Meg, Beth, Jo, and Amy the graphic novel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.151.250 ( talk) 04:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I had previously suggested that we have a bot tag drafts with {{ AFC draft}} in cases where the user had removed the tag, as a large number of users had become stuck and couldn't find a way to submit their drafts for review.
I have another suggestion that doesn't require unnecessary tagging: How about adding a script like this one either to the interface or as a default gadget. On untagged drafts, it shows this banner:
This draft is not currently submitted for review. |
The script would only be loaded in draftspace and only displayed to non-extendedconfirmed users.
We have 10,000 draft articles that don't include the instructions "Click here to submit your draft for review".
– Thjarkur (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
the talk page for Deletion Review at WT:DRV#Reason_3 where we're discussing in what circumstances DRV should be sending petitioners to AFC. Your comments are respectfully solicited.— S Marshall T/ C 22:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
For those that use reFill you'll be glad to know it is working again. It had been automatically migrated to a new cloud environment but needed some manual TLC to get it working there. Thanks to BStorm_(WMF) ( talk · contribs) for working her magic. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
So we had a weevil invasion of AfC from Starzoner last night, and I did accept some before I realised how many there were. As a described species they do seem to pass notability, but as DGG noted on User_talk:Starzoner#advice "GNG says that if there is not sufficient information for a separate article, a combination article is preferable" however DGG also notes "every individual species can have an article, and I would never want to challenge that" - so what are we supposed to do? It does not seem correct to decline as they are "notable" but if we accept them all are they just going to get redirected/deleted. My opinion is the are notable and if they are accepted maybe some all with be slowly added too, but I don't want to put the effort in or lead Starzoner to a false conclusion if the consensus is the other way. Pinging JarrahTree as they did the project assessments the ones I accepted last night. Thoughts? KylieTastic ( talk) 11:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it seems that the helper tool doubles some categories, see for example edits on Rauf & Faik by Missvain (Russian hip hop musicians) and on The Girl from Beskydy Mountains by Liance (Czech films). -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 07:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I have established notability for this actress, but the name is create protected. Requesting removal of protection so that it can be sent in the mainspace. Thanks! Dial911 ( talk) 02:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Could you please remove me from all the afc stuff.
I have been inactive since being "homeless" through late 2018 and most of 2019.
I have just moved in to my new place (yaay), and won't really be active again for another few months.
Even then, I have a lot of on Wiki stuff to do, and in RL, and Afc would be on a back burner for another six months or more.
Cheers Chaosdruid ( talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Yet Another AFC Helper Scriptin the Gadgets section of your Preferences. Primefac ( talk) 09:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#General information about companies is not promotion which affects us. Are we being declining drafts too readily for being promotional? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move Legobot to the inactive bots section; the task it performs (updating Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wrongly moved submissions) does not appear to have been performed since 2013. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Upon reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback, it seemed many editors were disappointed/offended to have received 'low' ratings, and didn't know where to go/what to do to improve the article further.
I added an explanatory note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme, detailing what ratings mean and don't mean, so hopefully this gives those users better context/guidance. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I've added an "Improving your odds of a speedy review" section to {{ AFC submission/helptools}}. Basically, search for relevant WikiProjects and tag the talk page with their banners. This will put the submission in WP:AALERTS for those projects, which should help to attract qualified reviewers.
It's a bit technical for complete newbies, but the instructions should be clear enough that it should help in many cases. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AfD/Example, a page which this WikiProject may have interest or need, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AfD/Example and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:AfD/Example during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Reviewer instructions sets out the review process in five steps. I suggest, to avoid inflicting unnecessary work and disappointment on our authors, we conduct reviews in the order suggested. I've just rejected Draft:Terez Sliman for the third time. It was previously rejected for issues that don't need to be evaluated until step 3. This draft really should have been rejected at step 2. The early surfacing of fundamental notability issues would have saved the author from unfruitful work on tone, promotional and general referencing issues. Until notability is established, let's not lead authors to hope that making improvements, other than providing reliable sources with significant coverage, will lead to acceptance. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Primefac Good day. I would like inform you that I have changed my user name to sentence case - see here on March 18, 2020. I cant change it on the participante list, I would appreciate if you would do that for me as I received the notice stated that "AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Cassiopeia" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants." Cheers. Cassiopeia( talk) 23:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
![]()
![]()
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that accepted AFC submissions are not automatically marked as reviewed, so that others would have to review it. Would it be a good idea for AFC submissions accepted by autopatrolled users to be marked as reviewed as well? Thanks, TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 05:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to quickly decline some obvious fails (like Draft:Kevin Loibl) while I'm not an AFC reviewer? I've come across a few of these, and have a huge urge to decline it, but just can't. Must I register as a reviewer to be able to review some obvious SNOW declines? Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 13:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
![]()
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Am I missing something or is the "8+ weeks lines" on Pending AfC Graph wrong? Hovering over the end point the tool tip says 183, but there are 450 in the 3 months ago cat alone! Is it just showing the "8 weeks ago" cat, and should include the 2,3,4 and 5 months ones? Cheers KylieTastic ( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The archive box at the top of this page only goes up to 2019 even though there have been archived threads this year. Can someone fix it? I tried, but nothing I did in preview looked like it fixed the problem and I don't want to mess around with what I don't understand. Clovermoss (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Article wizard#Preventing users from creating articles for topics that already exist.
Sdkb (
talk)
07:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This note has two topics. The first is in particular Draft:Hyperbolastic functions. I read this draft and understood that I wasn't qualified to review it, because it appeared to be about math that I learned fifty years ago and have forgotten. I asked for a review at WikiProject Mathematics. The review there was essentially that the references didn't establish notability in the context of mathematics. I declined the draft. It was then listed for review at WikiProject Medicine because the differential equations have applications in biology and medicine. The comment there was made by User:WhatamIdoing that some of the content should be in article space. Based on that comment, I will be accepting the draft (unless someone else accepts it first), and other editors can decide whether to merge the content somewhere. The second topic has to do with the reminder that the key criterion for AFC should be whether the page will survive AFC. I would prefer a slightly more restrictive test, in particular because that test is used by inclusionist critics of AFC as a cudgel to dump on the AFC reviewers who are only trying to do a job, but that is an important point. Sometimes a draft can be accepted because it belongs in article space, and other editors can decide where in article space it belongs.
Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
;-)
Hi all! I've recently made some changes to {{ AfC talk}}, used to congratulate editors with an accepted submission on their talk page. First, I've added a customized line explaining in a friendly/encouraging way the context behind the assessment that article got, since we were getting some feedback from editors for instance insulted at a C-class assessment not realizing that's a great rating for a new page. Second, I've added some code so that the line about autoconfirmed editors being able to create articles directly will only appear to autoconfirmed editors, as it's only pertinent to them. Unfortunately, due to technical limitations, it's not possible to substitute or even transclude this. Instead, it appears differently to different users, so if you're an autoconfirmed user delivering the message to a non-autoconfirmed user, it'll appear as if you're telling them they're autoconfirmed but won't appear that way to them (until they become autoconfirmed, at which point if they check their page again, it'll be there). So please be aware of that. Overall, I hope these changes will make for a better experience for newcomers! Sdkb ( talk) 09:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
There are two bugs with the AFC helper script. When I accepted this template, it put it in mainspace and titled it after the last slash. See the first move I did. I have manually fixed it with page moves. See page history here. Can anyone fix the script so that it doesn't make that mistake? Interstellarity ( talk) 13:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, I'd like to point out another possible issue/potential point to improve with the helper script. If a draft author changes name between the submission of the draft and the acceptance/declining of the draft, the draft author would not be notified. This happened here in my old user talk page, where I was unable to receive a message. Can this problem be fixed? Thanks, TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 01:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've done all my testing and concluded what I had to change.
{{New AFC submission/tools
|submit={{{submit|}}}
|author={{{author|}}}
|user={{{user|}}}
}}
to
{{New AFC submission/tools
|submit={{{submit|}}}
|author={{{author|}}}
|user={{{user|}}}
|rnd={{Rename detect|{{{user|}}}}}
}}
{{#ifeq:{{{rnd|}}}|{{{user|}}}||
*<small>'''Warning:''' This user {{{user|}}} might have been renamed to {{{rnd|}}}. Please see the [/info/en/?search=Special:Log?type=renameuser&page=User:{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{user|}}}| |_}} rename log] for details.
</small>}}
Thanks. TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 05:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
'''Warning:''' [[User:{{{user|Example}}}|The user]] who submitted this draft...
to '''Warning:''' [[User:{{{user|Example}}}|The user {{{user|Example}}}]] who submitted this draft...
? Thanks,
TLOM (The Lord of Math) (
Message)
04:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Over the past couple of months, I've noticed that some of the messages given by the script in declining/rejecting an article are very helpful for editors (particularly the notability ones), but some aren't. Here are some improvements I suggest. If others could comment, that would be much appreciated.
1. "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia." Shouldn't this decline message be a reject message? If the submission already exists on Wikipedia, wouldn't it make sense to reject the article? And the text of this isn't particularly helpful either. Performing a history merge is a very complicated task, so perhaps a link to how to perform a history merge works would be helpful (if the submission is actually worth merging). The reject template already includes a big button to "ask for help" which is particularly helpful here.
2. "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." When using this rejection notice, I find that ~90% of the time is for articles that are blatant advertisements. So I think it would be prudent to keep this message, for the 10% of articles that aren't, but also add a more specific reject message that informs users that their submission has been rejected as an unambiguous advertisement/promotion (basically stronger language than the advertisement decline message).
3. I also think the decline message that reads "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information." isn't particularly helpful. We already have specific decline messages for the most common scenarios (hoaxes, dictionary definitions, news, plot summary) that make the general decline message unnecessary in most cases, and if a more specific decline reason was required, it really doesn't bother the reviewer that much to make a custom decline message. My main objection to how this currently stands is that WP:NOT is just a thoroughly confusing essay and leaves more questions than answers for the editor. So I would delete this one entirely.
If there seems to be a general agreement for some or all of these changes, I can draft more specific language. Sam-2727 ( talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see
User:SD0001/AfC sorting - it's a list of all currently submitted AfC drafts sorted by topics predicted by
ORES machine learning tool (the drafttopic
model was used). Such a thing was mentioned on this talk page before -
/2019_2#Technical solutions for eliminating backlog (@
Worldbruce and
Kerry Raymond:). (During that discussion, I explored ORES but unfortunately made a mistake in writing my script leading to the ORES API returning bogus results - and I thereby concluded that ORES was bilge. My apologies.) In fact, these predictions are surprisingly accurate, even for pages that haven't been tagged with any WikiProject tags. What this means is that manually adding WikiProject tags is now less important (though it still has some utility, such as supporting
Article Alerts, etc).
If this report is useful, I can set up a bot to update it periodically. Should I split the list into subpages? That would probably make the list easier to navigate when the backlog is high (its only ~2700 atm), and probably facilitate transclusions. As an alternative, I could host this on toolforge, like toollabs:apersonbot/pending-subs. SD0001 ( talk) 19:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see a newer version of this report: User:SDZeroBot/AfC sorting. While the main page is as before, each section now also has a standalone page where drafts are listed with a lot of other details in a sortable table. Also worth noting that pages moved to mainspace will appear in green colour (via TemplateStyles). The next step is to file a BRFA and set up the bot to update the page daily via a cron. Before that, any further feedback / feature requests? SD0001 ( talk) 17:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
To even call this a film is a joke, and feels like promotion for the YouTuber more than anything. However the main concern I have with this is it's not just in really bad taste at this time, but would be irresponsible to help promote a video that misrepresents the COVID-19 symptoms. At a time when their is so much panic and stress in the world it just seams wrong. Is there a policy that would cover rejecting, at least at this time, for this reason? KylieTastic ( talk) 15:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a WikiProject for K-Pop? Now that I have the Rater tool, I can assign projects myself, rather than letting the New Page editors do that. Because I review the category of drafts where the title is the same as the title of an article, a relatively common submission is a K-Pop idol singer draft, where there is already a redirect for the singer to the group. What I would like to know is whether there is a WikiProject where I can tell them to conduct the discussion of whether the individual is notable. These individual singers, and songs in albums, are contentious, with strong opinions both ways, so any forum for discussion is helpful. Is there a WikiProject for K-Pop? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I recall seeing a draft getting declined and ultimately rejected as a non-notable topic. At the same time that draft is about a future film (or is it), and has enough prospect to be notable after 1 year or so. Would a new, good reject reason state that "it's not notable yet, but please resubmit when notable in about XXXX (entered by reviewer)"? What is your take on this? Thanks from TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 04:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.What exactly is wrong with writing an article about a football player reported by multiple sources to be an expected future star? The play is already notable as a subject of public adulation. ~ Kvng ( talk) 23:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
When a reviewer accepts an article, they are prompted to identify any WikiProjects, and are also prompted to give the article a class, typically Start, sometimes Stub or C. (I have a very hard time imagining a Class B article coming in over the transom of AFC.) However, sometimes the draft already has one or more projects. In that case, the script does not assign the article's class to the projects. It leaves the article as unassessed. An editor can then manually assign the article to a class. Is assigning the class to existing projects a feature that could be added to the script? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. A draft of mine got accepted and was moved to mainspace 2-3 days ago. However I was not notified of the fact. I came across another draft that wasn't cleaned up for a few hours after being in mainspace. Is there a way that reminds reviewers to automatically remind submitters and/or cleanup the draft automatically? Not everyone checks the draft on a daily basis. Thanks, TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 04:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The above two users have been reviewing drafts for two months now. I did a quick look through their reviews and didn't find anything blatantly problematic that would precipitate their being removed from the project. However, in the interest of "teaching the newbies" I would please ask that folks look through their contributions and give at least one compliment (i.e. what they're doing well) and (if desired) at least one piece of constructive criticism (i.e. things to keep in mind in the future). Thanks Primefac ( talk) 16:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I submitted a draft to Articles for Creation. My Talk page now has all these warnings and flags saying I am covertly editing Wikipedia in violation of the site’s Terms of Use. This feedback is a bit bewildering and confusing. Please advise how could I have been more transparent or less promotional?
I disclosed a conflict of interest on my user page and prominently at the top of my articles for creation submission at Draft:Theradome. Here is an example of my disclosure from the Draft:Theradome page:
I thought I was following Wikipedia’s rules meticulously. Am I not allowed to submit a page for independent assessment due to a conflict of interest? Kim Pankey01 ( talk) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to propose adding
Facepalm as a decline message for those times when you either 1) Could select more than two declines at once 2) Are too lazy to come up with a real decline 3) The page creator just resubmitted without any editing or 4) When you really just want to reject an article, but you wouldn't be able to fully defend that action.
Sulfurboy (
talk)
02:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:AFC/R has been getting very long lately (as of now, about 82KB). User:RscprinterBot currently archives the sections closed more than 24 hours ago, 1x/day. Should we change this to archive more frequently/sooner? (Ping to botop: @ Rcsprinter123.) Cheers, Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like our newest invasion is a series of articles about various obscure planes: Draft:Cierva C.7 Draft:Welch OW-4 Draft:Breda A.3
That's just a few examples of about 20 or so. Anyone have any specific guidance for this subject matter? Sulfurboy ( talk) 16:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard#Updating_Paid_COI_page_of_the_wizard. We need more input to help determine consensus, so your participation would be much appreciated! {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have recently noticed some articles being declined for notability, despite the presence in the refs. of a full editorial NYTimes obit; The criterion for acceptance at AfC is that it will pass AfD, , and we have never in the last ten years had afd delete an article with such a reference (from after the 19th century). (of course, there can be other reason for declining, like promotionalism ). DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
In User talk:Imzadi1979, Imzadi1979 brought up a point that I believe is worthy of discussion. The user suggested putting AFC into an "Article history" column along with other processes, like FA review or so. (Please refer to the captioned template for details.) That user also pointed out that since articles are no longer maintained by this WikiProject then it would be pointless to display an extra banner, as Article History could easily achieve the same. What is your opinion on this? TLOM (The Lord of Math) ( Message) 10:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
Article History}}
is not set up? –
Fredddie
™
16:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
{{ {{Infobox person | name = harishkumar bhadouriya | birth_date = 17/08/1993 | birth_place = ahemedabad, india | occupation = Businessman, Entrepreneur | birth_name = sachin
Here is a situation that I occasionally encounter, because I check the category of drafts with the same titles as articles. This of course means that the drafts cannot be accepted as such, because the article is already there. That category has a set of instructions, written by me and other reviewers. However, one situation isn't covered by the guidance. That is that the article is essentially the same as the draft, but the editor who created the article is not the editor who created the draft. The problem is that the draft was copied to the article without attribution. What should I do in this situation? Should I decline the draft because the article exists, and request a history merge? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello reviewers,
User:1292simon has been accepting AfC submissions without the script (causing users not to be notified), and they aren't an official reviewer yet. I wouldn't normally complain as long as they were correctly accepting/declining, but they seem to be missing a lot of the promotional language in articles they are accepting. I have left a note on their talk page, but they haven't responded. All the AfC participants page says on this is that "Editors whose usernames are not on the [participant] list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions." What action should be taken, if any, on this? Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Every time I look a a Wikipedia page an error message comes up to tell me that "AFCH could not be loaded". I have no idea what AFCH is or why this error message should interest me. What's going on? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello all,
Is there a way to search the massive list of Pending AfC submissions? I wrote some articles about mobile education apps (e.g Swift Playgrounds) and would like to (try) review submitted articles on this subject. Is there a way to search by specific keywords (eg. app && education)?
I am close to 500 edits, contribute to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Apps and have a scientific background.
Kind regards, -- Coel Jo ( talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
incategory:"Pending AfC submissions"
at the end of your searchdrafttopic:film incategory:"Pending AfC submissions"
.
SD0001 (
talk)
05:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it be worth our time to try to keep an informal directory of fields of expertise that different reviewers have. E.g. I know DGG is really good at evaluating academics, Sam-2727 I believe knows a good bit about physics. That way if we come across a particularly difficult page that needs to be reviewed we have an idea of who might be good to tag for a second opinion. Sulfurboy ( talk) 00:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to join this project, but I cannot due to the reason that my account is only 86 days old and there are only four days left. Do I have to wait or can I still be accepted? 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 04:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I have recently reviewed several drafts on standards of the International Standards Organization ( ISO). What I would like to know is whether there is a notability guideline or some similar guideline about articles on standards. Sometimes the article essentially states that the standard exists, and I think that probably isn't sufficient to accept the draft, but I don't have anything in particular to refer the author to. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
To everyone who's been pushing at the backlog give yourselves a pat on the back we've finally got it down to a semi-reasonable level again. Onwards to < 1000 and none over 2 months. Stay safe KylieTastic ( talk) 17:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Is anybody else having trouble with the copyvios tool on the AFC submitted template? It's giving me a 504 gateway time-out. Sam-2727 ( talk) 19:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Keeping well in mind the risk of feature bloat, does anyone think it would be useful to add an option to suggest the creator add an image? I've been manually encouraging folks to upload a Fair Use logo for Notable companies, and if a topic seems cool and likely to have an image (like a battle that was probably covered in pre-1923 media) to encourage them to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons.
Does anyone thing this could be a useful AFCH feature, or as an interim solution we could make an "addlogo" template to quickly type onto the creator's Talk page? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 04:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Some days ago, I had reviewed this draft and moved it to mainspace as the Notability was assured by a number of references provided in the article. Later, it was draftified by an admin noting that there was a case of undisclosed payment and that 3 different users were working on the same subject at Commons, Wikidata and here on English Wikipedia; whether they were sucks or three different paid editors.
As far as, I could see, the COI issue of paid editing is clear as the editing user has disclosed this. I think that the draft should be moved to mainspace, but what should be done for the suck case — as the editing user has denied of being suck of the other two users.
Requesting some experienced AfC reviewer to sort this. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This draft has been submitted again. When it was previously submitted, it was declined for tone reasons. He is a controversial figure, and the draft appears to present his views rather than a neutral point of view. The current draft appears to me to be less non-neutral but still non-neutral. However, here is the consideration. I have no doubt that he passes both academic notability and general notability. The principal question at Articles for creation should be whether the draft, if an article, will be kept on Articles for Deletion. The draft, in its current state, could be taken to AFD with a request to blow it up and start over. The result of an AFD should not be Delete, because he passes notability. It could be to blow it up and start over, but what is in the current page that would be left on trimming would be a Start-Class article (not a stub). Therefore I think that it should be tagged heavily and accepted.
What does anyone else think?
Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I have accepted the draft with a tag. Also, the draft had comments that were introduced in the review process but were not removed by the AFC script. I have moved the comments to the talk page. (As some reviewers know, this is a common matter that comments get into an article and should either be removed or moved. My thinking is that, if in doubt, they can go to the talk page.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I just declined a blank draft, my first review ever, without the script. Please check if I've done it correctly. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 06:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please modify the script that responds to the pressing of the draft “Submit” button to make it include more information on the edit summary.
An example submit edit: [1]
My wishes:
This will make it much easier to review the history of submissions of the same draft. This will make it easier for reviewers of MfDs citing “tendentious resubmission” at MfD, but also, and more importantly, draw the draft creator, submitter, and other page watchers to the fact that it has been submitted and the record of submissions. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@ SmokeyJoe: Are you talking about the AFC Helper Script Gadget or about the code that is invoked when you click Submit/Resbubmit? I'm going to make the assumption you're referring to the Submit/Resubmit click link and not the Gadget. Because the link only opens a edit window to create a new section on the page, the functionality you describe in request 2 is technically impossible (editing a Draft page can't also edit a Draft Talk). A bot script could be created to splice over that metadata to the talk page, but for the current functionality of multiple AFC declines on the page is already a very good indicator if it's being tendentiously resubmitted (something I would think an editor who is putting a page up at MFD for that reason would have done their BEFORE on, but what do I know). As to who submitted the draft, there is nothing preventing a malicious editor from submitting a bunch of drafts on behalf of someone else to ensure that they declines go somewhere else. Obviously once the declines start rolling in, people will look to figure out why they're recieving so many messages and then the entire game will be up (and the malicious editor will be corrected). Hasteur ( talk) 01:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I was about to ask whether a nomination for an Academy Award was in itself sufficient to accept Draft:Sergio Diaz (sound editor). It has been my recollection that in some cases a nomination for an Academy Award is considered of sufficient standing to be on a par with some major awards. Then I looked further at the draft, and I will still ask the question in general about Academy Award nominations. However, he was the recipient of the Ariel Award in the same year, and the Ariel Award is considered by some to be the Mexican equivalent of the Academy Award. Whether or not it has the same standing as the Oscar, it is a major award of the sort within the scope of biographical notability criterion 1. So I will be accepting the draft, but would still like comments on nominations for the Academy Award. If I should ask this question at a WikiProject, please tell me where. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
So per a previous message I posted, I have created a rough draft for a page that we can add ourselves to as a directory for areas of expertise. I welcome anyone to edit it to make it look nicer/fancier/better; 40k edits and I still pretty much suck at formatting pages.
The draft can be found in my sandbox here
Few points of input I'm seeking:
1) Should we sort the page by subject and list editors under it? Or keep it how I formatted it where it's a list of editors with their individual area of expertise?
2) How should we get the word out for people to add themselves? Can we send out a notice to people who are subscribed to the AfC newsletter or is that inactive?
3) Where should the link for it be placed? I was thinking about a link under the 'Participants' tab, similar to how 'category' and 'list' is under 'Submissions', but I can't think of a concise one or two word title for it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This is now live Between no one above being opposed to the idea and multiple editors now having added themselves to my rough draft, I'm going to take that as all the needed consensus. I've added to the tabs with the title "by subject". That seems to be about as concise and neutral as I could come up with, but feel free to change it. I've also added a note to the top of the page inviting anyone to edit or format the page as they see fit, again, it's not one of my strong points. Sulfurboy ( talk) 02:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
When I review something that's been resubmitted, the first thing I usually do is pull up the history and get a diff of the changes since the last time it was declined. Would it be possible to add a button or link next to where it says, "This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review" which goes directly to that diff? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It is great to see Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 months ago with under 300 drafts now. Maybe we can all tackle a dozen or so from it and see if we can get it down to zero? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia moderators,
At the moment there is a page called Assyrian People, most of the users on the English version of Wikipedia are Assyrians who are trying to Assyrianize the whole Wikipedia. The Arameans are an apart nation, but yet they try to assyrianize all Aramean pages and even persons who identify as Arameans.
So could one of the mods give me the acess to create the page called 'Aramean nation', because there is no page containing information about the Aramean nation, history and culture yet.
Thanks in advance.
MixedButHumann ( talk) 00:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks,
I am in the process of reviewing Draft:John M. Hickman. He has designed some notable buildings, including one added to the NRHP. I am trying to decide if that satisfies WP:ARCHITECT #4 or not. There aren't too many other secondary sources I could find. Hinging on rejecting, but want another opinion before I pull the lever. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Any update on getting this bio reposted? Thank you
Having trouble posting a pic as main pic from this recent article https://www.tapinto.net/towns/union/sections/arts-and-entertainment/articles/union-native-making-waves-on-daily-sirius-radio-and-espn-tv-shows
Thank you Carl Carlington ( talk) 21:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am not familiar with this process and have been unable to find the answer to my question in the instructions provided. I am a reasonably experienced editor and am confident with creating new articles, but I have just done some work to a draft that was created by a user who was not and who previously submitted it for AfC review. The article is Draft:The Lord of the Rings (TV series), and usually I would have gone ahead and moved it to the mainspace after my recent changes, but since it says not to remove the review template I wasn't sure if I could do that. Can anyone advise how I should proceed? Do I need to wait for it to be reviewed or can I use my judgement and create the article now? - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It might be a good idea if the "Submission is duplicated by another article already in namespace" and "Submission is a duplicate of another existing submission" decline reasons were also added to the "Reject", as I had to decline a submission that had been declined as a duplicate before, but was submitted again. (the other draft wasn't actually submitted, but it would still reduce the amount of drafts on the same subject) Being able to reject on those reasons could be helpful in reducing AfC load and also encourage people to work on the same page, rather than multiple versions of the same page. Semi Hyper cube 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
AFC submission|D|exists|OTHERPAGE}}
which According to
Template:AFC_submission/comments will render the decline template and the text "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at OTHERPAGE instead". I'm pretty sure that exists in the AFC Helper tool
Hasteur (
talk)
01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Abhibedi999 and Draft:Pauline Johnson and Draft:Pauline Johnson is yet another example of how WP:AfC does not serve genuine newcomers, and the AfC culture is WP:BITEy.
The age old problems:
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The newcomer has thus engaged with existing editors, and with their watching at least silent consent have written a new article straight into mainspace, the way most articles started. What do you think of encouraging this " WP:SPINOUT pathway" at the top of the article wizard pathway?New editor adds information to their topic of interest on an existing article. This new information comes large, and survives the critiques of watchers of that article. The new editor (now autoconfirmed), spins out a new article, wikilinked from the beginning from the mainspace article, thus tempting watchers to have a look.
I will respond to some of the other points made by User:SmokeyJoe later today. I will comment at this time about his criticisms of the reviewers that I know it is very much the custom in Wikipedia to identify a group of (volunteer) editors that the author does not belong to, and criticize them either for not doing enough, or for doing their jobs wrong. or being bitey. or for not being sufficiently effusive in welcoming new editors. SmokeyJoe's comments are typical in saying that the AFC reviewers are not doing enough (not writing long enough declines, etc.), using templates, being bitey, and not being sufficiently effusive. Such criticisms are very much the Wikipedia way. That doesn't make them useful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The newcomer is. If it's such a good policy, demonstrate it for us first rather than saying "You're doing it wrong" without giving us any demonstration of doing it right Hasteur ( talk) 00:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)nottreated as a human; There are no normal Wikipedia-style talk posts, whether on the draft talk page or the user talk page ; Messages aretemplated, template heavy, which makes it unclear to the newcomer on how to respondwell researched providing links to all the relevant Rules/Policies/Guidelines/Suggestions; Messages are on the draft talkpage itself, completelyunlike how discussion is done anywhere at Wikipedia...;
User:SmokeyJoe criticizes the AFC reviewers for commenting on the front side, the draft page, rather than the back side, the talk page. If he is criticizing the scripts rather than the reviewers, I agree, and some although not most of the reviewers agree. The scripts are designed to be convenient for new editors to see comments, even before they have learned how talk pages work, and are designed to remove the comments when an article is accepted. This is an interesting concept. It has the disadvantage that it doesn't get new editors accustomed to using talk pages. It also results in the new editors putting comments on the front of the draft with an editor rather than with AFC, which means that the comments are not removed when a draft is accepted, and have to be removed by a reviewer with an editor (as they were applied). Also, in many cases, the AFC comments that are removed when a draft is accepted are useful as thoughts about later expansion of the article, and should be kept on the article talk page. So if he is suggesting that AFC comments be on the talk page (the back side) of a draft, I agree, and maybe some other reviewers agree. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor who doesn’t understand the concept of a talk page, is not ready to be writing a new article.And yet WikiMedia and en.WP want to allow anybody to create and edit articles. Unregistered users can't do it in the main namespace due to WP:ACTRIAL and out of all the options a newish user creating an article in Draft namespace will be infinitely less Bitey than being tagbombed/CSDed/PRODed/XFDed into oblivion by New Page Patrollers. In fact one of the strongly suggested outcomes from NPP is to send the page to Draft namespace to improve. And what better way to help get a new editor assitance with what needs to be improved? Articles for Creation. Hasteur ( talk) 00:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that there are two proposals for how to change the scripts with regard to draft talk pages. Either of them would in my opinion be desirable. The first would be to have AFC comments, by both editors and reviewers, and decline messages, continue to go on the front, until the draft is accepted. At that point, the acceptance script should copy the comments all of the draft talk page as a visible record. (If the talk page becomes active, they could later go into Talk Page Archive 1.) The second would be to revise the script significantly and put the AFC comments on the talk page. It is true that many new editors do not understand talk pages yet. This would force them to learn about talk pages. The script could display guidance to the new editor telling where the talk page is. (There are a few editors, not many, who can't learn to use talk pages. Unfortunately, they are editors who can't learn to collaborate effectively.) Either change would be a good idea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe says that new editors should get their experience doing something other than trying to write articles. I agree, and every experienced editor agrees. Does he have an idea for how to try to steer new editors in a more constructive direction? Also, does he realize that not all new editors are here to contribute to the encyclopedia? Does he realize that many new editors come here either for self-serving reasons, to publicize themselves or their companies, or because they were sent here on misguided quests by instructors? The editor in question turns out to have sent here on a misguided quest, assigning students to write articles. The fact that a satisfactory article came out of it is a strange result of a strange misguided quest. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I would advise User:SmokeyJoe to look at edge case and corner case to put this particular situation in perspective. An edge case in engineering, and AFC is information engineering, consists of pushing one operating parameter to a limit. A corner case consists of pushing two or more operating parameters to the limits. By extension, an edge case is a situation in which one aspect is unusual, and a corner case is a situation in which two or more aspects are unusual. The typical range of operating parameters are that the editor has some degree of clue ranging from zero to moderate, and some degree of self-interest ranging from zero to high. A conflict of interest other than commercial interest is in itself unusual, an edge case.
Typically, either the draft is clearly not worth considering, or the topic appears to be notable. Interestingly, it is the middle between a non-notable topic and a notable topic that is an edge case, because those cases are the ones that require more than minimal evaluation. Typical examples of topics that are easy to accept are species, and legally recognized named places. It is the middle that requires work by the reviewer, or a decision to leave it to another reviewer.
The example given in the edge case and corner case articles is audio speakers. An edge case that should always be addressed is high volume, because it is well known that some users will stupidly or obsessively crank the volume way up, and a system should be able to deal with stupid or obsessive users. In AFC, cranking the volume up is done by repeated submission. That is an edge case, and it is an edge case that reviewers have to be ready to deal with, although it annoys the reviewers.
This was a corner case because it was abnormal in three different respects. First, the subject fell in the middle of notability. She was found to be notable, but not obviously so. Second, the editor had a highly unusual conflict of interest because they had been sent on a bizarre quest. The editor was not misusing Wikipedia, but the instructor was misusing Wikipedia. Third, the editor cranked up the volume by repeated submission with what was already an unusual signal, and the editor blew out the speaker. The test engineer then responded by cursing at the user.
User:Sulfurboy says: "As such, this sort of just feels like a rant about a situationally abnormal draft." Exactly. This was an abnormal situation, and SmokeyJoe is drawing conclusions about the whole process.
I would also advise User:SmokeyJoe to look up scalability. If SmokeyJoe is proposing that AFC reviewers compose individual welcome messages and guidance to new editors, that would increase the amount of work to be done by the AFC reviewers significantly, and so would not scale properly.
Perhaps User:SmokeyJoe is saying that the system responded sub-optimally. If so, response of the system to a corner case is almost always sub-optimal. SmokeyJoe is also saying that the engineer responded sub-optimally by cursing.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I am a few days late in responding to the comments by User:Nosebagbear with regard to a discussion that has fizzled out, which is probably just as well, because it was really a dump on the AFC reviewers for no good reason. However, thank you for replying and getting the discussion back on track to fizzle out. You, Nosebagbear, refer to editors who come to Wikipedia in order to provide an article. The good-faith error by User:SmokeyJoe seems to be in thinking that we, Wikipedia, encourage new editors to provide an article. We don't. We have AFC and related processes because some new editors want to provide an article. It is true that some of them get discouraged and go away. That is unfortunate, but I don't think that they came in order to contribute to the encyclopedia. They came in order to write an article. If we can be more aggressive in discouraging new editors from attempting an article as their first effort, maybe we should. but the problem certainly isn't that we encourage new editors to attempt an article. Thank you for providing that perspective again. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
A critic once said of Marshall McLuhan that one read his writings with the strange feeling that here was an intelligent man who for some reason chose to masquerade as a charlatan. After looking over the comments of User:SmokeyJoe twice, I have the strange feeling that this is an intelligent experienced editor who is commenting as if he were clueless. He writes to User:Sulfurboy:
You must be new around here. … Bigger proposal: Stop encouraging newcomers to start their Wikipedia career with a new page creation. Tell them to edit around their new topic idea in mainspace first.
Since when does having edited since 2007 give an editor a right to talk down to an editor who has been here since 2012, and has far more experience at AFC than SmokeyJoe, and say that they must be new around here? And wouldn't telling newcomers that they shouldn't have submitted an article for review be even more bitey than declining it?
SmokeyJoe complains about templated messages. The templates have been developed because there are two reasons why they are appropriate, not just one. First, one or another standard decline message is appropriate in maybe 90% of the quick decline cases, especially those with clueless submitters. An experienced reviewer can construct additional templates, and then they will handle 97% of the cases, especially with clueless submitters. Second, many of the submitters are clueless, and it is unlikely that personalized replies would change anything. If SmokeyJoe doesn't think that many of the submitters are clueless, I invite him to visit the AFC Help Desk, which has a combination of reasonable questions, and entries that do not even ask a question in English.
A corner case was handled sub-optimally, and an experienced editor comes in and talks like a clueless visitor saying that we are doing everything wrong. Maybe they have caught a case of cluelessness from the subpar editors that we deal with in order to look for and find good submissions. We didn't say that the system didn't need improvement.
User:SmokeyJoe already stated his concerns in a more reasonable place, where they could be ignored with a minimum amount of additional cursing at the speakers. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe complains about templated messages.
Hi. There's this draft, Draft:Peter Stanton, which says that the academic has won an award from IUCN and "was awarded the Public Service Medal (Australia) in the 1996 Australian Honours ceremony." These claims were sourced. However, there's not much else besides, with the last 11 sources all self-published works. I guess there's also a small tone problem (but not as much as needing a decline) but the academic clearly passes #2 and #7 of WP:NACADEMIC. I guess it should be an accept, a fix it myself and tagging. Am I mistaken? Thanks a lot :-) Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 09:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
An article needs to be created about the celibrity Kendra Spade. 2A02:908:183:39F:5491:5580:886:9E18 ( talk) 11:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Request has been created. 2A02:908:183:39F:5491:5580:886:9E18 ( talk) 12:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Vhora Mahir is a frist-class cricketer who played for Gujarat and goa in the Ranji Trophy. He was born in Anand,Gujarat,India. Mahir is a left-hand bastman and left-arm offbreak bowler. Wikipedia
Born: 2 August 1987(age 32 years), ANAND Nationality: Indian Batting style: Left-handed Role: Bowler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahir24 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 12:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I just declined a draft with a combination of decline reasons that I have never used at the same time before. The draft was in Spanish, and there already is an article in English on the subject. It also appears that there may have previously been an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, presumably in Spanish, but that it was deleted; however, I cannot read Spanish and am guessing at what the display means.
I welcomed the submitter. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
![]()
Online events:
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I came across this draft, that was created by user Marcusllehman ( CentralOauth). This user is a confirmed sock of Tiago Ghidotti, which isn't blocked on enwiki yet. Hence this draft is obviously an autobiography. While doing random AFC patrolling, I found this draft, and unaware of the situation, I suggested some modifications. Soon after, another user Marcusllehmanbrz gave me a barnstar and heeded my advice. From the use of "we" in the barnstar, I suspected something wrong, launched an investigation and found what I just told you. I then summarily declined it and launched an SPI. Have I done anything wrong, or could I have done better at any point? Thanks Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math ( Message) 01:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)