User talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny and precision in deciding when to use rollback. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi DoubleGrazing. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks @ToBeFree: much appreciated. :) Working through your list — uhhuh, yeah, got that, natch... wha, "use common sense"? Oh dear. I'll work on that.
Thanks for the barnstar, too, my first one! Put together it's like an early Xmas. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Heh, you're welcome. 😄 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @AmandaNP: Thanks for the reviewer rights, which I've been trying out for a couple of days. I now realise it's not always quite as straightforward as I maybe expected, and was wondering if you might have any guidance or feedback to offer? (If there's an easy way for you to review my reviews, so to speak, that would be great, but don't worry if it's a hassle.) For example, I've rejected two changes:
  • Somebody wanted to change "he got engaged to his girlfriend" to "he engaged to his girlfriend"; the latter is (AFAIK) incorrect, so I rejected it. I thought at the time I was right to do so, but now I'm not so sure.
  • Another editor wanted to change "twins suckling a she-wolf" to "twins being suckled by a she-wolf"; both are correct, since 'to suckle' can be either transitive or intransitive. I rejected it as being correct but unnecessary change; in hindsight, I'm pretty certain I was wrong to do so.
Looking at the WP:RPC guideline again, I'm reminded that accepting the edit, even if it's not ideal or necessary (as in both of the above examples), should be the default position, and rejection should be reserved to clear policy violations and similar. On the other hand, I don't want to err so much on the side of caution that I start to accept things that genuinely aren't constructive or otherwise shouldn't be accepted. Any words of wisdom on this? (And sorry to be hassling you, it's just that since you kindly granted this right, you were my natural first point of call.) In the meantime, I will certainly be adopting a more cautious approach going forward, no matter what. Thanks & Regards, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Michael Dalle Stelle

hi DoubleGrazing, you left me a message regarding the modification of the Michael Dalle Stelle profile, I want to inform you that the changes were made by myself. please re-enter my changes. thank you so much Michael Dalle Stelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Dalle Stelle (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Michael Dalle Stelle: Thanks for your message — a few things in response thereof:
  • I didn't know it was you who made those edits (arguably, still don't), because they were done anonymously under an IP account.
  • If you are indeed the subject of the article you edited, that in itself creates a problem — you really shouldn't be editing articles about yourself; see WP:COI.
  • But most of all, the main problem with your edits, and the reason for my reverting them as explained in my edit note (which, incidentally, is a good habit you may wish to get into from the outset), is that they were not supported by references to external reliable sources; see WP:RS.
I won't "re-enter" your changes; you're welcome to do that yourself — as long as this time you support them with appropriate references.
Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mumbai Mirror

The political alignment was earlier removed from our infobox. I just restored it. 115.99.229.220 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In case you're checking back here, I've responded on your talk page. Basically, it's a problem of not providing references, and also about a possible COI. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, DoubleGrazing, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to create articles about Finnish women. As you can see from our Wikidata-based redlist there are lots of notable Finns who do not yet have articles in the English version of Wikipedia. When creating women's biographies, you might find it helpful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing and all the best for 2021!--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

About Andromeda Loans Wikipedia article

Dear DoubleGrazing

This is with reference to an earlier draft post I had submitted which can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andromeda_Loans.

You had requested me to provide substantial proof of reference for the first half of the post especially dealing with the facts stated about the company's history and operations. I do have a valid & credible third-party reference to be shared which reiterates the same facts stated earlier. Before I make the article live again by adding the reference, I just thought I would run it by you to get your approval in doing the same.

This is the reference news story I wanted you to check - https://www.forbesindia.com/article/brand-connect/data-analytics-and-technology-fuel-andromedas-digital-transformation-journey/65207/1.

Please let me know if this is good enough to include in the draft page and make the article go live. Your help and guidance is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagadish.praj (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Jagadish.praj: Thanks for your message. Firstly, let me clarify: it is not for me to 'approve' anything; what I think is or isn't good enough doesn't matter, it's the Wikipedia guidelines that matter, and I'm merely trying to interpret as best I can — other editors may have different interpretations.
That said, I note that the top of the Forbes 'article' you cite is tagged "PAID POST". On the bottom of the page it says "The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists." In my opinion, that piece would not therefore satisfy the "independent of the subject" requirement of the notability criteria WP:GNG, and possibly not the "reliability" one, either. Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Bernardo's Childhood

Why do you need a source for the abuse that went on in Paul's home? It's in chapter 6 of the book "Deadly Innocence". How is the pain he experienced less important than what happened to some helpless pretty white girls while he was akumatized?

Also I don't need to "properly explain" why I don't like Dark Avenger Karla's version of their story. I don't care if my edits get reversed, as long as I was there. WizardofJustice (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@WizardofJustice: It's nothing to do with whether I "need a source", and everything to do with why Wikipedia does: you may wish to read through some key policies, starting with WP:V (that's 'V' for verifiability). In any case, since you seem to have a source, all you need to do is cite it in the usual manner — problem solved!
As for whether you care about your edits being reverted, that's your call, of course — up to a point: if you keep adding unsourced content or otherwise flouting policies, you will eventually get yourself banned. (That, incidentally, is not a threat, but advice.)
Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"all you need to do is cite it in the usual manner"

Done. WizardofJustice (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Emil Aaltonen

On 21 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emil Aaltonen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Emil Aaltonen went from being a 13-year-old shoemaker's apprentice to owning and running the largest shoe manufacturing business in the Nordics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emil Aaltonen. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Emil Aaltonen), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viking Sally 1987 murder

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Viking Sally 1987 murder you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viking Sally 1987 murder

The article Viking Sally 1987 murder you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viking Sally 1987 murder for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Corrected information

Hello I dont believe my edit on the page for Antonio López de Santa Anna was biased at all. The wording I removed seemed to be biased in making him look like an egomaniac and very self centered. Because of this, I removed the pieces of text that made it seem so. Rather than "praise their liberators and especially Santa Anna", I changed it to "praise their liberators." This removes any bias of anyone. Mexican Nationalist (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mexican Nationalist: that's cool. Only, I've no horse in this race (other than reviewing the pending change), so you may instead wish to make your case on the article talk page, where those with an interest in the subject are likely to congregate. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Ross

I can say with 100% certainty that Jonathan Ross presented a series called Fantastic Facts around 1992/1993 on ITV. I googled it and found it. Check for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:825E:9800:9948:3B9E:8264:DE1E (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor — I wasn't questioning whether he did or didn't, I was asking you to state your source. Googling etc. isn't for me to do; I didn't make that edit. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 1987 Viking Sally murder

On 10 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1987 Viking Sally murder, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of Finland's longest unsolved crimes, a 1987 murder on board the cruiseferry MS Viking Sally, is going to court after 33 years? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1987 Viking Sally murder), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the unsolved 1987 Viking Sally murder drew 12,308 page views (1,026 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks during the month of February and has thus earned a place on the February stats list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vetri Association nominated for AfD

Hello, as you nominated the Vetri Association for AfD (Article for Deletion), it's my duty to inform that I have made necessary changes as per the comments you have made. Kindly verify the page out. Mahilan2k (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mahilan2k: thanks for letting me know. However, as there's now an open AfD discussion, you may wish to make your case there instead. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Zev Dickstein/Shapiro

Hi, I'm Barkeep49, an editor and an administrator. I noticed you tagged Zev Dickstein for deletion under A7. In looking at the sources it provides some clear claims to significance and might even be notable. Before tagging an article for A7 please consider looking at the sources to ensure that there are not credible claims of significance or other factors which might make an A7 inappropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49: thanks for your comments; noted. Just to explain, my reading of this was that while the sources may establish notability, the article itself doesn't make much of a claim for significance, although possibly that's a pointless distinction if the latter automatically follows the former. In any case, I'm happy to accept I may have got that wrong, and thank you for pointing this out. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Genozip

Hi DoubleGrazing! Thanks for reviewing my very first article. I read your comments carefully and tried my best to edit the article to address all the concerns: - Genozip is indeed a tool that I developed - and hence I declared COI - Genozip is the first universal genomic compressor and it has gained significant popularity in the field since its release last year, with several independent papers published benchmarking against it, hence a believe it reaches the notability bar. - I added more references for better verification and to reduce reliance on primary sources I would be grateful if you could take another look, and hopefully remove the template message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divon lan (talk • contribs) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Divon lan: thanks for your comments. Firstly, congrats on your first article! :) Secondly, I'm glad to see you've taken the feedback onboard (you'd be surprised how often that's not the case!). And thirdly, thanks for declaring your COI on the article talk page. By all accounts, you're off to a great start.
As for supporting the article with sources, there are two separate but linked issues. Firstly, the contents must be backed up by reliable, independent sources (and the coverage in those sources needs to be sufficient to establish notability, as defined in the Wikipedia context — see WP:N). With the new sources added, this may now be in order, but TBH I've not reviewed the sources in detail yet so don't want to comment.
Secondly, every material statement should be linked to a specific source using citations, so that it's easy to see which source supports which statement. At the moment, the citations are all at the beginning and end of the article, with the middle paragraphs seemingly unsupported.
As soon as the necessary improvements have been made, someone will come along and remove those maintenance templates which are no longer needed. If you want, you can also ping me and I can take another look myself.
PS: Please bear in mind that even with your COI declared, you must be very careful in how you edit the article, so that there's not the slightest hint of bias.
PPS: Don't forget to sign your talk page comments with the four tildes. :)
Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your kind words. I have added citations to the middle paragraphs. Can you take another look? Much appreciated! Divon Divon lan (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Divon lan: I've reviewed the sources, and your additional citations thereof, and consequently removed the notability and citations needed tags; I think those points have been satisfied. I've left the primary sources tag there, because scientific papers can be primary, and I can't tell whether the ones cited collectively do or don't satisfy the need for secondary sources — someone with better understanding of these things will have to do that (or alternatively, if you can find indisputably secondary sources, such as newspapers or magazines, please do add those). Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi @DoubleGrazing - I have now added a couple of secondary sources. Are you able to remove the primary sources tag? Also, is it possible to remove "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" as this is already declared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divon lan (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Divon lan: Okay, I've removed the COI tag. I'm not actually sure if declaring the COI is enough for the tag to be removed, but on the other hand it's not like you can do anything about your external relationship with this product, and in that sense this issue cannot be resolved as such. As for the primary sources tag and the new sources you've added, I don't know if those sources count as secondary, and in any case they appear to be blogs (= not WP:RS), so I'm not sure if those additions improved the sourcing much. Which is another way of saying, even if I were to remove that tag, there's no stopping someone else adding it back, if they feel that the sources need strengthening. In any case, as this is a new article and hasn't been reviewed yet, a new page reviewer will be along any time to run the ruler over it, so I think it's time for me to step back and let someone else take a view on it for a change. :) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Armenian Genocide recognition - February 2021

Hello DoubleGrazing, you have deleted an entry in the Armenian Genocide recognition because "the news is three years old", but the news is recent (today).
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-slams-dutch-governments-recognition-of-1915-events-162702
https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/26/turkey-slams-dutch-bid-to-recognise-massacre-of-armenians-as-genocide
Gre regiment (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Gre regiment: well, yes and no. The Dutch lower house voted for recognition already three years ago. It didn't become the official Dutch government policy. They're now pushing for it again, but it's unclear whether it will have any impact this time either. So it's a bit of a 'non-news'. And what's even less news is that the Turkish government takes issue with anyone even thinking about using the word genocide. :) But okay, if you want to add this back, I won't reject it again (can't promise someone else won't, mind), although personally I'd rather put it into the paragraph that mentions the Dutch 2018 vote; even if it messes up the timeline somewhat, it IMO belongs there conceptually. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello @DoubleGrazing:, no if this info confuse the readers we should better not add it. I will try to review the article later and see if there is a good way to add this update, else we should better leave it as it is. Thank you! Gre regiment (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tag

Hi, Yesterday I added a page for Sarah Megan Thomas and you added a tag to say “many statements unsupported by citations” and I was just wondering which statements you thought that of. I know nothing of the subject other than that which I gathered from sources so if you could help me that would be appreciated. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Hildreth gazzard: I think you have a point there. On a cursory glance I thought the sources cited didn't support all the contents, but I've just had another look and I may have been overly harsh. (In my defence, I was on my first cup of coffee, which clearly is no time to be messing with other people's Wikipedia articles!) I've removed that tag. Thanks for flagging this up, and apologies for any confusion caused. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks. No worries Hildreth gazzard (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Moore Kismet!

Hi DoubleGrazing, you nominated the article I created for Speedy Deletion, I respect & understand your decision to do that but the Speedy Deletion nomination got rejected because of the sources, I was wondering if you could remove the Speedy Deletion tag from my user talk page as I don't want to look like I'm not credible, thank you much appreciated. GenesisGSE (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @GenesisGSE: without commenting on whether you should be removing the speedy notice from your talk page, just to say that you can remove it yourself; it is your talk page, after all. And not only that, it would be better if you removed it, rather than anyone else, because — again — it is your talk page, and I for one don't really want to mess with other users' talk pages. Hope that's okay, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi DoubleGrazing. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks @Rosguill: much appreciated. :) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing, welcome to the family & kudos to one of my mentors @Rosguill for being a sysop always ready to take a chance on individuals, he was the one who took a chance on me by giving me the NPR rights & without them I wouldn’t be where I am today. I have sincere love for them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey @Celestina007: thanks for your comments, kind of you! :) I will certainly try my best to live up to the trust and high standards expected. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
:) Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive_2&oldid=1011700396"