User talk:DoubleGrazing
 | Welcome to my talk page!  Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing! Also take care of the following points:
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
 | Scam warning!
There is a scam underway, targeting editors who attempt to publish Wikipedia article(s); see WP:SCAM for more information. If you have been approached by someone offering to create, accept or otherwise help publish an article in exchange for a payment, please e-mail the details to [email protected]. This may help others in a similar situation to avoid becoming victims of this vile scam.PS: If that someone claims to be me, they emphatically are not! |
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.
Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]
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)
- @Usedtobecool: thanks (I think). Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry... DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just ignore it, for now (I think). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)