User talk:DoubleGrazing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


If I declined your draft at AfC, and you came to ask me to re-review it, please don't (unless I expressly said you could) – I feel it's fairer to the other drafts that yours goes back to the pool... and probably also fairer to your draft that someone else reviews it next. (And if you just came to tell me you've made changes, that's great, but no need to inform me.)

If you still want to leave me a message about a draft or article, I'd appreciate if you could please link to the page in question, so I don't have to go hunting for it. Ta.

my article about a book[edit]

Thank you for your message and for reviewing my article on "Devil's Puzzle." I thought it would be a great addition to Wikipedia given its metafictional style. Perhaps it could be included on the "Metafiction" page rather than having its own separate article. If you agree and have the time, please feel free to add it there. Thanks!

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Warning to all Wikipedians! The user DoubleGrazing is a grandmaster editor who does not respect the rules of wikipedia and makes false statements. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: thanks (I think). Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry... DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ignore it, for now (I think). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: BADHAN[edit]

Actually I have created this page named BADHAN from this reference https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%A8

And recently I am working as a volunteer of this organization. This is an one of the biggest humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh. I think you should reconsider this draft.

Regards Md. Muqtadir Fuad Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Md. Muqtadir Fuad: while the referencing and style of writing may be acceptable at bn.wiki, it isn't here on en.wiki. Each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project, and being accepted into one doesn't in any way guarantee acceptance into another version.
The draft can be reconsidered once you have addressed the decline reasons, and resubmitted it.
You must also disclose your conflict of interest. I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:25:50, 18 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by SurgeFire[edit]


Hello! I was wondering about that aforementioned article; I've seem some.. heavy-handed posts here about not creating an article with a recent account, so, I apologize if that is an inconvenience. I was wondering about what the difference was between this drafted article and the other mentioned villages here in Selbu, so I could more appropriately match the other articles? Thank you in advance!

SurgeFire (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SurgeFire: you need to show that the subject is notable enough to justify an article; merely existing is not enough. Notability, in the case of populated places, is defined in WP:GEOLAND. That states that if the place has legal recognition of some sort, that is likely to make it notable, but we need evidence of such recognition. Alternatively, if you can provide multiple (3+) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, ie. reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, that would also establish notability. Your draft cites only a single source, and one which only provides weather details and forecast. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, understandable! I was wondering about the other articles of the villages, though, like Fossan, for example - which similarly also just uses that weather forecast as one source on the stub articles. I only just ask if there's a notable difference between the two on that front (out of curiosity, not out of dragging my feet to not list more sources, haha).
Definitely going to be looking into other sources for the draft, of course. Would this be a viable one? It was one I also referenced while drafting. SurgeFire (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SurgeFire: there can be many reasons for how those other articles came about. They may have been created by someone who had the necessary permission to publish directly without going through a review. Some may be so old as to predate the review process, and probably back then the referencing and notability requirements were less stringent. (There was a time in the early years of Wikipedia when anybody could write pretty much anything about a topic they knew something about, without worrying about niceties such as referencing...) This causes some friction nowadays when we do worry about referencing; we often get asked "why is my draft not accepted when there's a much worse article already published on a similar subject". Basically, the answer is that, for the reasons mentioned earlier, we don't assess new articles or drafts by comparing them to existing articles, many of which are known to have 'issues', but instead by referring to the various guidelines and policies which apply today. (If you do want to use existing articles as a model, you should only really look at once that have been rated as 'good', which is a sort of community seal-of-approval.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, I love the referencing bit... and no worries, I apologize if I do come off as the users who complain harder about draft acceptance correlating with other, less substantiated articles! I promise it was all just curiosity.
I think I've found my other two sources and I'll try to add onto that draft when I can. Sorry for getting in your hair about all this! Trying not to ask stupid questions or do stupid moves, you know... which, I understand things are taken very seriously here (for good reason) and I'm just trying to look as least bad as I can for a newbie, I suppose. Ha. SurgeFire (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SurgeFire: no problem at all, there really are no stupid questions, it's infinitely better to ask than not to ask. Happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO[edit]

Doncha like Indonesian? 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Draft:Miss Globe 2022[edit]

Hey DoubleGrazing, just a nudge that you've left this under review for a few days now. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @TechnoSquirrel69, clean forgot! It was created by an obvious sock, and I was waiting for that to be confirmed so I could have it G5'd, but I guess SPIs are again taking a while. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might've been it, but wanted to check just in case. Thanks for the clarification! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69: okay, I've now had this speedied (G4, as well as G5), so that's sorted while we await the SPI verdict. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalted[edit]

Hi, DG, how are you? I saw your condiment suggestion here of course when administering the last rites there, but didn't act on it – it seems to me that it's serving a faintly useful purpose as a sort of magnet. But please let me know if you disagree and I'll think about it again. Big thanks for all the great stuff you do, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: yeah, I was at two minds about even requesting speedy on this or the other sock creations, let alone asking for extra seasoning... maybe in hindsight I shouldn't have (after all, sock magnets can be ever so useful). Please feel free to do what you think is best, obvs, and thank you kindly for even running this by me. :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serenata Flowers wikipedia submission[edit]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I appreciate the help you have provided on the wikipedia article for Serenata Flowers thus far.

I appreciate that there is concern about the nature of the post being considered to read more like an advertisment, if you could please kindly provide details about the specific sections, I'd be happy to change these.

Regarding the sources, I understand you have concerns, but these are legitimate sources with information about the company, I am unsure what other sources I could utilise here, as when I review wikipedia articles on similar subjects they have similar cited sources? It would be really useful to understand which of the specific sources are causing the failing checks FerGuyMan (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FerGuyMan
 Courtesy link: Draft:Serenata Flowers
Just to be clear, I declined this most recently because only one source had been added, being an interview, which contributes nothing in terms of notability; therefore by definition the earlier decline for notability reasons still stands.
The other sources are just routine business reporting, and TrustPilot is user-generated. The strongest of the lot is probably the ToM piece, but it doesn't really provide significant coverage of this business.
The reason why interviews, routine reporting, etc. do not count towards notability per WP:NCORP is that it is far too easy to get press releases, interviews, and just downright churnalism and 'sponsored content' into the media, much of the trade press being especially notorious in this respect. If we accepted all that, virtually any business that has been around more than a year or two would probably be notable, whereas we only want to publish articles on ones that genuinely are noteworthy and have therefore been published about independently and without enticement or input by the business.
Because there is no real case for notability, this draft is essentially just what the business wants to tell the world about itself, and that is what makes it inherently promotional (see WP:YESPROMO). There are also some vaguely peacocky expressions like being "one of the first" or "established" or "most reviewed", but those can always be edited out later.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the speedy response and for such a detailed reply, really appreciate that.
I think your explanation is very clear in terms of removing 'peacocky' langugage and I would be very happy to remove these and edit them out - thanks for the help there in pointing this out specifically.
In regards to the notability in terms of press coverage, I also understand that there are some concerns here, however in terms of what exists out there this seems to be the majority of what covers Serenata Flowers. I would argue that as Serenata Flowers has been around for 20 years and is in the top-10 of online florists in terms of web traffic in the UK, and was at one stage the 3rd most visited online florist in the entire world that it would not fall into the example you share about any business that had existed for a year or two getting an article (but I completely understand the point you make), this brand and business is certainly significant, and it is certainly in the British public eye when it comes to gifting and flower delivery.
I will attempt to make a few more amends, removing the Trustpilot source, removing the peacocky words and seeing if there are more sources that are suitable and submit a draft for approval again.
Thanks again for taking the time out to help me, I appreciate it FerGuyMan (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FerGuyMan: I should perhaps clarify one more thing regarding notability. In the case of businesses (and in fact most subjects), we don't get to determine that the subject is 'clearly notable' because it is eg. well-known or the biggest or oldest of its kind, etc., and then go ahead and create an article on it using whatever sources happen to be available. Notability is depends on, and is exclusively demonstrated through sources, meaning either there are sufficient high-quality sources that establish notability, or there aren't, in which case notability cannot be presumed to exist. In saying that, I encourage you to find sources that unambiguously satisfy the WP:NCORP standard before resubmitting, rather than going with "the best you've got", because this draft has had so many reviews already that it is inevitably reaching the point where a reviewer might conclude that the subject is simply not notable enough and reject the draft outright. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing,
Thank you for that note and information. When I look at the page Prestige Flowers, I note that there citations do not appear to meet notability requirements, and they include sponsored content links that I have been asked to, and have removed from my own submission. It would be good to get your thoughts on the above. FerGuyMan (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FerGuyMan: I agree, at least some of the sources in that article do not meet the WP:GNG standard. (Whether enough of them do, to establish notability, I don't know as I haven't looked at them in any detail.)
This is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, whereby the existence of problematic articles makes it's okay to create more articles with similar problems. This is clearly not sensible. There are inevitably any number of problems among the 6.8m+ articles in the English-language Wikipedia, but we should avoid adding any more. That is why we don't compare new drafts to existing articles, but rather assess them with reference to the currently-applicable guidelines and policies.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the explanation - that all makes complete sense! FerGuyMan (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 62[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

  • IEEE and Haaretz now available
  • Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
  • Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hey! I understand why you would have my article removed. After reviewing the draft, I see why it kinda looks like I am advertising the product. It was not my intent to promote the product (SnackleBox), but I will learn from this and do better in the future!


Thanks for your feedback!

Caden dand (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caden dand: the problem here is that not only is the draft promotional, the only source it cites is a Google search (which isn't actually a source, but rather a portal to possible sources), which brings up a number of resellers of this product, further emphasising the promotional nature of the whole thing. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leomabuku (23:43, 24 April 2024)[edit]

How do I add new information to wikipedia ie information about a business I own or about myself --Leomabuku (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leomabuku: in short, don't.
If your business is genuinely notable, meaning that it has been written about in newspapers and magazines, TV or radio programmes have been made about it, etc., then it may be possible to write an article about it, but even then it shouldn't be you who writes it, because it's pretty much impossible for you to do it in a neutral, non-promotional manner, and promotion of any sort is not allowed on Wikipedia.
If such media coverage doesn't exist, then it isn't possible even in theory to write an article. So your first job should be to see if you can find sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard.
And you must disclose your conflict of interest (WP:COI) before you even get started, otherwise you may be blocked as an undisclosed paid editor.
All these are the reasons why I said at the beginning, "don't". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Travel Insurance[edit]

You declined a draft I submitted a while back and there were two things to address. The first is the conflict of interest question which I replied directly to on my talk page. I wish it applied but unfortunately I was placed with someone else. The second is about how it meets notability guidelines. There are hundreds of references about the company but I added the ones to the talk page that I feel show notability based on the link you provided. I also added one more to the draft and resubmitted. Please let me know if anything else is needed. SoScRa2 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SoScRa2: okay, thanks for responding to the COI query. I've now removed the COI tag from the draft.
As for your sources, please note that the sources which you're relying on to establish notability must be cited in the draft, not just listed on the talk page, as most reviewers probably wouldn't even look on the talk page.
Also, I noticed that you're citing International Business Times (ref #2), but this is not considered a reliable source, and will be disregarded by the reviewer.
Anyway, now that you've resubmitted this draft, a reviewer will pick it up at some point and either accept it or give you further feedback. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Roger Bhikha[edit]

Totally agree with your comment. I thought it was a bit of a stretch when I submitted the article. Also, I enjoyed your comments on IP editors! Cheers, 76.14.122.5 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2024[edit]

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Draft: The Grove, Harrow School[edit]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

I would just like to address your comments on my draft submission.

I have realised that it would work as a building, but I do not think it would be a quality article without mentioning its boarding house status, with so many notable people attending. If you would want me to change it to purely about the building it would be a pointless article that doesn't actually talk about the building. Daftation 🗩 🖉 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daftation: I'm not saying you should change the article to be about the building, and certainly not suggesting that you shouldn't even mention its use. I was just saying that historic buildings have different notability requirements than organisations, and it's possible for the building to be notable but the organisation contained within it to not be (or indeed, vice versa). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly should I do to change it? Daftation 🗩 🖉 07:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daftation: well, if I'm right that an academic house is considered an organisation, then per WP:ORG we would need to see significant coverage, directly of it, in multiple (3+) secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and completely independent of the subject.
It's also possible that another reviewer interprets the rules differently and decides (IMO incorrectly, but still) that the building being inherently notable due to its listed status, the notability of the subject in its entirety has been established, and accepts the draft. So if you want, you could just wait for someone (other than me) to review it, and see what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Is it possible for me to alter the article so that it fits under historic building notability rather than organisation? Daftation 🗩 🖉 07:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daftation: that's really only a change in emphasis – the difference between saying it's about a listed building that happens to be used as a boarding house, as opposed to saying (as it now does) it's about a boarding house that happens to be in a listed building, if that makes sense. But I wouldn't want you to rewrite it, let alone to misrepresent the subject in any way, just to shoehorn it into a different notability requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading the draft again, the only really thing that makes it seem academic based is the infobox. Perhaps I should change it to a building infobox and add boarding house information including notable Grovites into a section called 'Boarding House'? The history sections seems like a normal history section, so does the introduction. The title obviously has to be changed though. Daftation 🗩 🖉 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daftation: yes, that would seem to make sense. The {{infobox building}} template also has a parameter for highlighting the protected status, to underline that a bit more.
I'm not sure the title needs changing, though – or what did you have in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps The Grove, Harrow? Daftation 🗩 🖉 09:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just edited the article - can you check for any improvements I can make? Daftation 🗩 🖉 09:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daftation: the first thing that jumps at me is that the referencing is quite sparse. Eg. the 'History' section has 11 paragraphs, but only three citations. The section after that is entirely unreferenced. Where is all that information coming from? While inline citations are not strictly required (other than in articles on living people), they are very much the preferred method, and if you do use them as you have done here, then the bare minimum would be at least one citation per paragraph, and even that is only really enough if the same source genuinely supports all the information in the paragraph and the paragraph is quite short. Even if you keep citing the same source over and over (in which case, please use WP:NAMEDREFS, as you have done with source #4), that's still much better than leaving a lot of content unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ive fixed it and added more sources, one from The Telegraph, but mostly from 'The Harrovian' archive, which is Harrow's official publicaion. Can you review it? Thanks. Daftation 🗩 🖉 11:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daftation: I think it's better to let someone else review it, to get a second opinion on notability. (That probably works in your favour anyway, as many reviewers have higher acceptance rates than me.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft help pls[edit]

A friend of mine attempted to write a Wikipedia article on an evolutionary biologist by the name of Niamh O'Hara. Dr. O'Hara has her own company (along with working with universities and NASA on several research projects) and has been prominently featured in a variety of sources, but his submission was shot down.

He asked me to help, knowing that I had some time on my hands to help him edit. After finding his submission, I was able to get it cleaned up and organized to look pretty decent. For whatever reason, it has still not been reviewed since I performed those edits.

I do not have any relation to Dr. O'Hara and have never met her, seen her speak, etc. except as I was editing these sources. My friend saw a presentation she gave to the UN in New York and was impressed by her experience, hence the desire to write an article.

Can you please help me out here and let me know if I'm missing a step to submit this? I literally created this Wiki account to help him out so I'm completely new here. You were listed as my mentor on my homepage, so, here I am.

Link to article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Niamh_O%27Hara LAD1624 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LAD1624: the draft hasn't been reviewed following your edits, because it hasn't been submitted for a new review. It's basically just sitting there in the draft space gathering dust, wondering where did everyone go. I've now added the submission template so you can submit it when you feel it's ready; just click the blue 'submit the draft' button. (Note that I have not submitted it yet, so for now the dust-gathering continues!)
If you want further advice, I think the referencing is a bit OTT; especially the 'Research' section suffers from WP:REFBOMBING with over 40 citations, which is going to really annoy the reviewers. I get that it's tempting to list or cite everything someone has published, but this isn't really the point of Wikipedia. I would suggest reducing the citations considerably, either to include the most notable publications only, or by citing (just once, after a statement describing the published output) a reliable source that lists them.
On a more general note, our main role as AfC reviewers is to make sure the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. For most subjects, notability requires multiple sources that satisfy the general WP:GNG notability standard. In the case of scientists, that's still a possibility, but it's actually more common to go for the special WP:NACADEMIC standard instead; this allows the subject to be judged on their career merits rather than on whether they have been good at getting themselves talked about in published media. The NACADEMIC standard has eight criteria, only one of which needs to be satisfied. Please take a look at it, and decide which one you feel is met, and make sure to provide clear and reliable evidence of this.
Good luck, and happy editing! :)
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was wildly helpful! Poor thing was just chilling in the dark. Thanks for adding the submission details, that is much appreciated.
Also great feedback re: sources and notability. I'll head back to the drawing board and target that NACADEMIC standard!
Great mentorship, 5 stars. LAD1624 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Børstad gård[edit]

Hello DoubleGrazing. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Børstad gård, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: no:Børstad Gård exists, so I guess this avoids outright WP:G3 speedy deletion. That said... Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no worries @Shirt58. :) TBH, I don't think that no.wiki article should exist, either, but that's clearly no.wiki's problem, not ours. Still, good to at least see what a $100m farm in Norway looks like. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing and Bishzilla:. No worries, mate. I do note that I initially thought, and to my shame, that "Børstad gård" was something in Swedish.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Bishzilla majestically rouses self from hibernation when pinged.] Silly little Shört. No weird letter ø in Swedish! Swedish letter ö much finer! [Explanatory:] Sound like Shirt! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 15:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Akkurat! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the ignominy. This even worse than when when I mistook Georgian for Armenian back in 2016 or so. <non-languages nerds, please note that this is the same Shirt58 that at work does their Hunter Valley v Cohen calculations by counting on their fingers. And is now workplace chit-chat topic-banned from explaining to their colleagues why "knight" is still spelled, umm, "knight" instead of "nait"... and will pretty soon be office chit-chat topic-banned from explaining how we got the singular they from the Vikings over a thousand years ago> And so on, and so on. Which I won't.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eternally grateful to you @Shirt58 for the most excellent idea of workplace T bans. I'm already compiling a list, there will be some major changes around here... DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LYNN MONTGOMERY[edit]

Hello Double Grazing,

Thank you so much for reading my article submission - and doing it so quickly! As I am sure you can tell, I am a newbie to WIKI editing. What brought me to wanting to create an article about myself really has less to do with self aggrandizing than it has to do with an upsetting issue I encountered with something I found on WIKI. This year is my 50 year High School reunion. So I took a moment to look up Chaffey High School, Ontario, on WIKI and check in on Notable Alumni. I was shocked to see that there was only 1 notable female alum and she is famous for being a murdered prostitute. What a terrible state of affairs! Certainly in the 100 year history of my school, there are many deserving women to be noted on WIKI. I called the head of the Alumni association and offered my services to help find deserving women, but alas, it's a Catch 22. Without a WIKI page, one cannot be a notable alum so we are left with one dead prostitute! Can you, or some experienced editor, help me solve this problem? It doesn't have to be me, but that seems like an easy place to start. In addition to a Los Angeles EMMY, I have won a Writers Guild Award, created a sitcom comedy on NBC and Disney (The Torkelsons) and Directed a feature doc on Grace Fisher https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11530606/ https://www.lincolncenter.org/lincoln-center-at-home/show/amazing-grace-202 https://www.gracefisherfoundation.org/ https://www.independent.com/2020/01/14/the-struggle-and-strength-of-gracie-fisher/

Any ideas or guidance would be greatly appreciated!.

Thank you, Lynn Lynn Patrice Montgomery (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Regarding Draft:Mar Sebastian Pozholiparampil[edit]

Draft:Mar Sebastian Pozholiparampil can be considered notable according to this article Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide.

The Following website is an official catholic website of Pope Francis and this particular page talks about the diocese and it's respective bishop.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/10/10/171010d.html


do you think these evidences are enough to consider this bishop as notable ? I will be waiting for your reply ‍‍ TomLovesFar ‍💬 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Catholicism guide you're citing here is just an essay, not an actual notability policy. In any case, it isn't saying that bishops (or any other rank of clergy) are automatically notable, but rather that they can be "presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added). In other words, even then we need to see multiple sources that satisfy the general WP:GNG notability guideline. Your draft cites no such source: three of the sources are not independent, and one (Catholic Hierarchy) is not considered reliable. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Tags Removed[edit]

Thank you for commenting on "Draft:The Consulate General of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Mumbai". Big tags are now removed. Hamidsharifiwiki (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing&oldid=1222496350"