User talk:Cabrils

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Concern regarding Draft:Cameron Stewart (journalist)

Hello, Cabrils. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cameron Stewart (journalist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Juliet Vickery

Thanks for your comments on this article. I have tried to address them and have added details on the talk page - I hope the notability is clearer now. I've added a few more citations where I can find them, and have removed some others. There are a few that are still in professional organisation posts though, which might not be ideal - I'm lacking any more source information for these things though. Do we just delete them, even if helpful? Any advice welcome. Cmbird1 Cmbird1 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made good revisions the draft and it has now been accepted. Well done! Cabrils (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawrie_Mifflin

Draft:Lawrie Mifflin

Hello Cabrils! I made some updates to my page on Lawrie Mifflin. At your convenience, are you able to take a look? I added more notable sources and inserted them within the text. Thank you! BoolaBulldog (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BoolaBulldog,

Thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I encourage you to create a userpage as it will make communicating much more efficient.

Good work on your edits, they have helped. I've done a bit of work on the draft and added some additional references. I'm hoping to do more clean up to strengthen the notability, as I do feel this page has great potential, so I would please ask you to not submit it for review until I've had more time to improve the draft. I'll let you know here (or via your userpage if you create one and let me know here) when I think the draft is ready for submission. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils! Thanks for taking a look. I really appreciate your help.

Here is my userpage talk BoolaBulldog (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Could you please now address the issues I raised in my comments in relation to whether you have a conflict of interest; and WP:THREE.

Please let me know when you have done so, which will likely mean you need to create a Userpage also, and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils. Hope you are well!

I am not the subject of the page, I am not being paid by the individual, nor do I personally know them. I am a sports historian and enthusiast. My goal of this page is to elevate an impactful woman who was a trailblazer in the world's Title IX issues. To further discuss, I have created a userpage for us to continue our conversation and hopefully be able to strengthen my page for publication.

For the WP:Three piece, where shall I put that information? Am I to include the three most notable sources? I am hoping to better understand what is needed for that to help. Thank you!! BoolaBulldog (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BoolaBulldog.

Thanks for that clarification regarding COI.

Good work creating a user page. Further discussion about the draft should probably best be held on the draft's talk page, where it will be most accessible for other reviewers.

Regarding WP:THREE: as I wrote in my comment on the draft: "It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject." Please peruse (and not just scan) WP:THREE for the answer to your question.

I trust this helps. Please feel free to ping me here when you have had a chance to address the issues and I'd be happy to have a look. Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils! Hope you had a nice weekend. I have added sources on this Draft talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Lawrie_Mifflin. Are you able to please review when you have a chance? Thank you! BoolaBulldog (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BoolaBulldog, thanks for that information. I think the draft looks good so I've now accepted it into main space. Well done and, given your background and interests, I encourage you to draft more pages you feel could be appropriate. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eva_Díaz_(art_historian)

Thanks so much for your careful comments. I have combed over the draft and provided more backup on your suggestions on the "Draft: Eva Diaz (art historian)" talk page. I believe the notability within the field of contemporary art is clearer now. As far as I can see all cites are from outside organisations, not blogs or such. In the case of the current Wikipedia article on Art and General that lists Diaz as a former curator, I don't believe I can cite that but it seems appropriate for her to have her own page (that is how/where I discovered she did NOT have her own page), and a link from the mention of her name on that page. Cheers! Avengers23 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Well done, those revisions look good.

Could you please now address the issues I raised in my comments in relation to whether you have a conflict of interest; and WP:THREE.

Please let me know when you have done so (which will likely include you creating a userpage), and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by WP: THREE, I'll go ahead put the WP: THREE on the talk page.

Re: conflict of interest. I am not the subject nor have I been paid; I am a specialist in 19th century French art, but with great interest in contemporary art and design, and particularly contemporary art theory, curatorial practice, and gender studies. To that end I have taken up your suggestion and made a userpage that speaks a little to my projects and passions :) Avengers23 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've replied on the Draft's Talk page-- let's continue the discussion there for better visibility. Cabrils (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous, I've replied to your reply over on that talk page with further backup on the subject's expertise e.g. articles Diaz is quoted in from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the like. Thanks for your careful editorial feedback, and good day to you! Avengers23 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your latest over in the subject's talk page, a labyrinthine correspondence! Thanks for your patience and your careful editorial eye, it seems to read really clearly now. I've drafted the Felicity D. Scott page which published, I'm afraid I got caught in a noob loop here on the Diaz page. Once that one goes live I can get cracking on some further ones, exciting! Avengers23 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page has been accepted by another reviewer. Well done and hope you continue to contribute given your expertise and what you've now learned during this process. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your keen editorial eye is appreciated. Thank you! Avengers23 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sara Nomberg-Przytyk

Hello,

I wanted to let you know that I made the necessary changes you noted.

Best,

PSYCHREL (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)PsychREL[reply]

Nice work, draft accepted into main space. Cabrils (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Teo A. Khing Design Consultants

Dear Cabrils,

I write to you following your kind review of my proposed page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Teo_A._Khing_Design_Consultants on 7th March 2025.

I wanted to work through the feedback you've provided to ensure your suggestions are met and the page can be published as hoped.

Your feedback listed the following (summarizing):

1. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

2. The draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements); reliable; secondary; strictly independent of the subject

1. Qualifying For A Wikipedia Article

The subject in question, Teo A. Khing Design Consultants, is an internationally recognized architecture and master planning consultant that has won numerous awards for its work. There is a precedent with Wikipedia recognizing its peers including:

- Burrell Foley Fischer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrell_Foley_Fischer

- Dominique Perrault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Perrault

- Populous Holdings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populous_Holdings

It is proposed, and hopefully agreed, that the body of work of the proposed subject qualifies it to similar treatment.

2. Multiple Published Sources

Your feedback here is certainly taken on board and I write for further advice. One of the challenges being confronted is that some of the projects being listed are now 15 - 20 years old. The internet wasn't as comprehensive as a database of information then as it is today. This issue is exacerbated in developing parts of the world where many of these projects were completed (Malaysia, Dubai).

It is understood that there is a preference for more detailed references. This remains the goal. Accounting for the above listed challenge, multiple references have been provided for each of the projects and these reference are attributed to independent industry publications and independent media publications. To assist further on this:

1. Are there specific references/publications that are concerning please?

2. With acknowledgement to the above listed challenge, do you have any further advice as to how approved references may be sourced?

Your further feedback is warmly welcomed. The intention is to work with you to overcome obstacles and shortcomings so that the requirements of Wikipedia are met.

Thank you in advance. Blackgoldsiro (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

My best advice is to please peruse, not just scan, my comments and ALL the links included therein, because your questions are all addressed there. It's clear from your draft, and questions here, that you are new to creating pages on Wikipedia, so you do really need to take the time to thoroughly absorb and become familiar with all the relevant guidelines, policies and procedures: pointing you in that direction is the best way I can help.

I would discourage you from comparing your draft to other existing pages: each page is (continually) assessed on its own merits and whether it meets the relevant requirements.

The best place to ask for advice to "overcome obstacles and shortcomings so that the requirements of Wikipedia are met" is the Teahouse.

And to assist in the functionality I would encourage you to create a Userpage.

All the best with it all. Cabrils (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cabrils,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will review your comments again as advised.

I do hope the first query, regarding the potential merit of the new page, has been addressed even if making a 'like for like' comparison with a series of other notable international architecture firms is not recommended. Would you be so kind as to comment on this. If the merit of the subject matter is not assessed as relevant, sourcing appropriate references to support the achievements of said subject is a mute point.

Thank you again. Blackgoldsiro (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for the belated reply.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page as doing so will make communicating with other editors much more efficient.

I am assuming that this is your first foray into creating a Wikipedia page and appreciate that can be somewhat daunting. It is. Given the nature of the subject, and the form of the draft, is one of the reasons I am asking you directly whether you have a conflict of interest, because if you do (which would be the case if you are being paid to create the page, either directly or as an employee of the consultants, which seems likely), it raises the bar of meeting the relevant criteria. Having said that, the Consultants may still meet those requirements, but the draft will require amendment.

Beyond my relatively thorough comments (which I again encourage you to peruse), I can't offer much additional advice. Again, the Consultants may qualify but I can't realistically assess that until you have undertaken all the suggestions included in my comment (including WP:THREE). And very importantly, please also address the conflict of interest.

And once again, certainly the draft has potential.

I trust this helps. Cabrils (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Vandalism Academy Graduation

CVU Academy Graduate

Hi Cabrils, On behalf of the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy, congratulations! You have successfully completed all assignments and have now graduated from the Academy. You completed your final exam with a score of 95.5% – well done! It's been a pleasure to work with you over the past year. I hope you gained something from this CVUA program and do always note that the motto of the Counter Vandalism Unit is Civility – Maturity – Responsibility. Do drop by my talk page if you have any questions, as I am here to help. Thank you so much for your willingness to help Wikipedia in this CVUA role. Best. Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Cassiopeia! I have learned a great deal, and your patience and guidance has been wonderful. Hugely appreciative for all your precious time. Cabrils (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopeia talk 06:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Worm Shepherd

Hello Cabrils,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Worm Shepherd for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Worm Shepherd to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

C F A 14:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft approval: Juninho Manella

I have deleted some external links and made adjustments, I would like you to review the draft Draft:Juninho Manella. Sebastiana M.Soares (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

The draft is still replete with unreliable sources, WP:PEACOCK prose and no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.

Please peruse my original comments and the plethora of links I included therein.

You have done very little to address all my suggestions, including WP:THREE, clarifying any conflict of interest, and explaining with specificity why you feel the draft meets the relevant requirements.

I'm sorry if this is disappointing news but the draft is a long way from meeting the relevant requirements. If you would appreciate further help, please post a message on the Teahouse.

All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help improve Aabhoon

Hello, @Cabrils: I'm requesting your help in improving typo, grammar most preferably tone and references (if you've an extensive reach on libraries and books available on this topic Aabhoon thank you in advance. JogiAsad (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not really in a position to help as requested. I would encourage you to edit the page to meet the relevant requirements, and then post a comment on the deletion discussion informing reviewers that you have done so. Alternatively, you may choose to move the article to the draft space where you can develop it further, and when you think it meets the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG), submit it for review there. You can ask for help at the Teahouse. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph B Brown

Additional Justification for Notability of Draft:Ralph B. Brown

Thank you again for taking the time to review this submission. I would like to provide additional justification for notability under Wikipedia guidelines, and ask for specific clarifications before proceeding.

WP:GNG and WP:NPROF Criteria

I believe the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, particularly the following:

WP:NPROF #3 – The Rural Sociological Society offers and annual Ralph B. Brown Scholar Paper Competition in his legacy. In 2004, he also received the Excellence in Instruction Award from the Rural Sociological Society (RSS), a national organization of scholars. This award is given to one individual per year and reflects significant pedagogical impact in the field.

WP:NPROF #6 – His intellectual contributions to community attachment theory, rural development, and the sociology of development in Southeast Asia have had measurable influence on scholarship and public policy. These include work cited in many peer-reviewed journals like Rural Sociology, Community Development, and Agriculture and Human Values. His legacy is also honored through a permanent endowment at BYU supporting student experiential learning in international development and sociology.

WP:GNG – The following independent and reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage of Brown’s work, influence, and legacy: Ward, Carol J. (2015). "Honoring Ralph B. Brown". Rural Sociology, 80(1): 1–5.

Peer-reviewed biographical article that evaluates Dr. Brown's scholarly and pedagogical legacy.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12065

"Sociology professor shares love of learning." The Daily Universe, Nov 30, 2005.

Feature article on Brown’s teaching philosophy and international education initiatives. This is publication is editorially independent.

"One Last Lecture." Kennedy Center, Apr 28, 2022.

Retrospective feature that outlines the principles and philosophy of Brown’s final lecture. While hosted on a university-affiliated site, this content is widely cited in student testimonials and institutional reflections.

"BYU’s Ralph B. Brown honored by national Rural Sociological Society." University Communications, Oct 7, 2004.

This article documents his national teaching award from RSS. While not fully independent, it provides verification of the importance his legacy recognition by a third-party organization.

In addition, the Rural Sociological Society named a student paper competition after Brown—a strong indicator of posthumous professional recognition.

Request for Clarification

I have made some changes to the draft. Could you please point out any specific phrases or sections that "read like a CV"? The current draft is organized thematically and narratively (e.g., pedagogy, research, leadership), but I’m happy to rework structure or tone where needed. Are there particular spelling or writing errors or examples of peacock language that stand out? I’ve reviewed the draft carefully but may have overlooked some issues.

COI and Image Update

I have no personal or financial connection to Dr. Brown and am not being paid for this contribution. I have disclosed this on my user Talk page per WP:COI guidelines.

The prior image was removed and will initially be published without an image. I am currently seeking permission from his primary university for a freely licensed alternative consistent with Wikimedia Commons policies.

Thanks again for your willingness to reassess once edits are made. I’ll wait to hear your clarifications before proceeding with revisions. Loujieming2 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Louijieming2.

Thanks for the pings.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page (you have created a Talk page), which will make communicating with other editors much more efficient.

Thank you for all that helpful detail.

I have added a reference to the draft, and while Brown's notability is not as strong as would be ideal in the draft, I think it's sufficient to meet the requirements, so please go ahead and submit the draft, then leave a note for me here and I would be pleased to accept it.

Good work. Cabrils (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the encouragement, Cabrils. I've resubmitted the draft, and craeted a User Page per your recommendation. Cheers. Loujieming2 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see another reviewing editor accepted the page before I could! Well done again and I encourage you to keep up the work. Cabrils (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Approval Questions: Draft:AKP Sports Foundation

Hi Cabrils,

I saw the comments that you have made on my recent approval request. I do apologize as this process is much more complicated than I had expected even after reading docs and watching videos.

I thought that half of the articles that were provided came from notable and independent sources, specifically "The Korea Daily" and "Korea Times". Would you be able to give me an example of a notable/independent source that would be accepted for a similar situation like this?

In regards to the COI disclosure. I had already placed the COI in my user page, would I need to place it elsewhere?

Thank you for taking the time to review my page, I appreciate the feedback! Hanisaac (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hanisaac, thanks for the ping.

I see you have not made any changes to the draft since I declined it. Please thoroughly read ALL my comments, AND the links I included therein. There are some very basic issues that must be addressed, for example, the draft does not contain a single inline citation to reliable sources. Perusing my comments is really the best place for you to start. If you require specific help with something, the best place to ask is at the Teahouse.

When you have implemented the required (significant) changes, please ping me here and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Julie Buntin

Hello. You reviewed my draft page for Julie Buntin and left me some notes. I edited the draft, adding more sources to enhance credibility and notability (links to credible reviews from publications such as The Times of London and The New York Times, comparing Buntin to other notable authors; links to universities and programs where Buntin has taught; etc.). Could you please review the draft again? I believe it now meets the criteria. Dukebball811 (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page and a Talk page, which will make communicating with other editors much more efficient.

Those changes are improvements, but the draft still requires significant cleanup, even if it meets the notability criteria, which is yet to be assessed.

Please peruse (not just scan) my comments on the draft page, and all the links included therein, especially this: To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. The draft lacks any formatting; and includes links to many unreliable sources.

You have not addressed the issue of conflict of interest; nor WP:THREE. In fact you have not addressed almost any of the issues I raised.

Again, please peruse my comment and address the issues accordingly: that is the best path forward to progressing the draft, which does have potential. Cabrils (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jay Gallentine

Thank you for taking a look at my draft article draft:Jay Gallentine. Before making further edits to the draft, I wanted to better understand your criteria.

Working with user Flat Out, I made changes to the primary areas you address, adding additional evidence of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," including, among others, Publishers Weekly, a publication of the US Air Force, and a former NASA Chief Historian. I would have thought these would qualify as WP:THREE for WP:AUTHOR 3, demonstrating that Gallentine's works are considered notable within the field.

I also removed references that were created primarily or in collaboration with the subject, and Flat Out removed additional references, which I accepted.

I based my draft on that of other authors; while many additional references exist that meet the notability demonstration requirement quotes above, neither do I want to turn the Wikipedia page into the back of a book jacket by listing them all, focusing instead on the more notable.

All that said, an you tell me more about your personal threshold as an editor for number of sources, and I will add additional sources to meet that cutoff. Thanks so much! DavidHitt (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thanks for the ping.

That's all helpful background, thank you.

I think the draft generally is looking very good.

My main concerns (in no particular order) are:

1. Conflict of interest: from what you've said above it does sound like there is some connection there, which is fine, but the nature of that needs to be declared on your Talk page (please see my comment on the drat for details), because a COI lifts the bar for ensuring articles meet the relevant criteria (including neutrality).

2. The photo: It was uploaded by an editor "Shang-Ma-Deff" who claims it as their own work. This seems highly unlikely unless "Shang-Ma-Deff" is a nom-de-plume of Gallentine. Some verification about the copyright status of the photo would help justify it's legitimate use. Or simply remove it...

3. The Lawsuit section does not contain any references. Matters relating to court cases need to be handled with care so certainly some references (from reliable sources) for all asserted statements are required.

Otherwise it feels to me like a well considered page and good contribution!

Please let me know if you have any questions; and otherwise ping me here when you'd like me to reassess the draft. Cabrils (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the help!

1) I've added a conflict of interest statement to the Talk page for the article, per the conflict of interest instructions.

2) The photo was uploaded by Gallentine, and thus is his to enter into the public domain.

3) There is one reference in the lawsuit section, which publicly documents the information in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is documented there as well, behind a paywall, so I'm not sure how that works. The third paragraph used to have a reference, but Flat Out removed it since it was from Reddit; the link remains in the history. I'm content to excise as much as you feel necessary; let me know what you think!

Thanks!

David DavidHitt (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

That all sounds excellent. I will endeavour to reassess the draft in the next day or so and be in touch. Cabrils (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DavidHitt,

Apologies for this belated reply.

Thank you for that clarification.

At this stage my remaining concern is the lack of reliable sourcing for the lawsuit section. I'm in no doubt that the suit took place, but Wikipedia's policies are that content should be supported by reliable sources. The court documents are primary sources. Accordingly I don't think we can justify including the lawsuit section in the absence of any reliable sources. Perhaps it's worth a search of newspapers to see if the case received any media coverage?

Please let me know your thoughts. Cabrils (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just go ahead and remove it. It's really tangential to the meat of the article, so I'm happy to take it out now, and can review later if better sources are found. I've made the change, so it should be ready for review. Again, thank you SO MUCH for your help with this! DavidHitt (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. So @DavidHitt please submit the draft for review and I'd be pleased to accept it. Cabrils (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks! DavidHitt (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Draft accepted. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for re-review of my draft on Draft:WayBetter

Dear Cabris,

Thank you kindly for your previous review of my Draft article on WayBetter!

I believe this draft now meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for companies, specifically WP:NCORP criterion 1, 2 3 and 4, which state that a company is presumed notable if it has received “significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.” This draft includes multiple in-depth, independent, and reliable sources such as: The Wall Street Journal – article on DietBet and financial incentives for weight loss The New York Times and Financial Times – coverage of gamification in health and fitness apps Men’s Health – feature discussing WayBetter in the context of fitness motivation Peer-reviewed scientific studies, including one published in Internet Interventions (Elsevier) and another in JMIR Serious Games The tone has been revised for neutrality, the article is now properly sourced using standard citation templates, and I have disclosed a potential conflict of interest on the Talk page. I am not affiliated with WayBetter in any financial or professional capacity, and my only involvement was in an academic research context, without compensation. I respectfully request a review for potential publication. Thank you for your time and consideration.

David de Buisonjé (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

That all sounds excellent. I will endeavour to reassess the draft in the next day or so and be in touch. Dank je wel! Cabrils (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, please see my substantive reply on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of my revisions to Draft:Shigehiro_Oishi

Dear Cabrils,

Thank you for your review of my Draft article on Shigehiro Oishi.

I believe this draft meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for academics for the following reasons:

1a. Oishi has been the author of highly cited academic work. Indeed, he was ranked as the #22 most cited social psychologist by Nosek et al. (2010), a peer reviewed journal article that analyzed the most notable psychologists (source included in draft; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20668215/). SCOPUS confirms high number of citations (H-index of 73).

1b. Oishi developed a significant new concept: psychological richness. His work on psychological richness won him the Society for Personality and Social Psychology's Daniel M. Wegner Theoretical Innovation Prize for its "innovative theoretical contribution to personality and social psychology." His seminal work on the topic (Oishi & Westgate, 2022) was cited over 200 times by peer-reviewed academic journals; a quick SCOPUS search finds over 120 peer reviewed journal articles published on the topics since. Additionally, the concept has garnered significant media attention (Wall Street Journal, NPR, CNN, Financial Times, etc., as cited in draft article)

1e. and 2b. Oishi has won The Career Trajectory Award from the Society of Experimental Social Psychology in 2017, the Diener Award from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in 2018, the Outstanding Achievement Award for Advancing Cultural Psychology from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in 2021.

3. Oishi was elected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

5. Oishi has a named chair appointment as the Marshall Field IV Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago

As you note there are many direct references to Oishi's academic articles, but there are also many secondary sources; additional secondary sources have been added to establish notability, now totaling 30 secondary sources. The WP:THREE are Nosek et al. (2010), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20668215/; Oishi's induction into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (https://www.amacad.org/person/shigehiro-oishi), and this 2024 New York Times article featuring Oishi's research (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/health/moving-childhood-depression.html)

Note I do not have a conflict of interest, only an interest in contributing to Wikipedia articles on psychology. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this review.

Best,

Ko2024 Ko2024 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Well done, those significant changes and that additional information and clarification are great. I have accepted the page. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Reassessment: Draft:Ledion Liço

Hi Cabrils,

Thanks for your previous review! I have now added independent reliable sources with better significant coverage. I believe the draft:Ledion Liço meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.

Could you please take another look when you have time? Thanks a lot!

--- 81.26.204.183 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Please see my comments on the draft page.

In short:

You have not added any "independent reliable sources with better significant coverage" to the draft: rather, you have added a single source (NOT "sources"), which appears far from reliable.
You have not provided any detail as to HOW the draft meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.
You have not addressed the likely conflict of interest.

I have rejected the page again. Please address these issues before submitting the draft again to avoid disappointment. Cabrils (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review: Draft:Jack_Logan

HI Cabrils, can you please check if the artile already qualifies? I think it meets meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Thank you! RavenFireblade (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RavenFireblade,

Thanks for the ping.

Since the draft was rejected in November 2024, the only substantive change has been the addition of 1 new source: https://tribune.net.ph/2025/04/26/jack-logan-from-radio-waves-to-documentary-waves . This is an interview with the subject, and as such has limited weight in contributing towards establishing the notability of the subject. This is especially the case in circumstances where you have a conflict of interest.

On the draft's Talk page you wrote "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 and #2 because the person has been nominated for such a significant award or honor, and the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; (internet culture in the Philippines)". Please note that WP:ANYBIO #1 states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" (emphasis added). To my knowledge Logan has only been nominated once (for the June 2023 Asian Television Awards for best single digital program/short film category: https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=jack+logan+vlogger&in=ALL&orderBy=Relevance&searchFor=Articles). Please let me know if this is not correct?

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thank you for your prompt response. Logan actually won Breakthrough Vlogger of the Year award in 2023 from Philippines' Golden Eagle Awards. But i did not cite it because there is no press article about the said award, however, there is a video proof posted on his Facebook page about it. RavenFireblade (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, i added the recent interview that was published today and resubmitted the article for approval this time. I hope you can reconsider. Thank you! RavenFireblade (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RavenFireblade, please see my comments on the Draft page. Cabrils (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils, i have added WP:THREE on the draft's talk page, fixed the broken links and added a new one. Please kindly check and let me know if this is okay. RavenFireblade (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about sources on: Draft:Tiffany_Cianci (Influencer)

Hello,

Thank you for recently reviewing by draft by me and leaving feedback. It's my first one so I appreciate the help.

I just had a question about citations regarding social media content. In my draft, I cited several social media posts that included the subject identifying herself as a supporter of a specific politician and a supporter of specific legislation as evidence that the subject supports said politician/legislation. I also cited a LinkedIn profile where the subject disclosed their education + employment as evidence of their education + employment on my page draft.

I was under the impression that doing this was acceptable under WP:SOCIALMEDIA which says that "self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." I am looking for guidance on how best to approach sourcing like this, if at all.

Thanks!

~~~~ HannoC (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HannoC,

Thank for the ping.

Firstly, well done on drafting your first page!

OK, your understanding is correct: "self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves."

As I wrote in my comment on the draft, a significant issue with the draft is that I don't see it presently meeting the relevant notability requirements. We need to see reliable, independent sources writing substantially about Cianci. I'm not seeing any reliable sources (as defined).

In such context, where there are none, or at least very few reliable sources, and a weight of self-published social media sources, the draft is some way from meeting the relevant criteria for acceptance.

I would also not there are some issues I raised in my comment on the draft that also need addressing, including whether you have a conflict of interest; and how you see, specifically, the draft meeting any relevant requirements (eg WP:ANYBIO).

I hope this answers your question?

I encourage you to persist because it well could be that there are reliable sources out there... Cabrils (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the feedback and response.

I made edits to this draft a few weeks ago and resubmitted and wanted to ping you and ask if you'd be able to take a second look. I added a number of additional non-self published source and listed a WP:THREE + other notes in the draft's talk page.

To address the other concerns raised, I do not have a conflict of interest. I am not Tiffany Cianci or being paid by her. I also believe the article also now meets the WP:BASIC requirements, as the article's subject has been covered in depth by a number of respected secondary sources (including the ones I noted in my WP:THREE). Both the New York Times and Washingtonian have published long in-depth profiles of the subject and several other outlets have covered the subject significantly.

Thank you!

~~~~ HannoC (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HannoC, thanks for the ping.

OK, good one.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no conflict of interest.

Those 3 sources are good and I feel comfortable these are sufficient to meet WP:N. I note that these 3 articles all address the same single issue (legal action relating to her gym) so Cianci really falls into WP:1E, meaning the person is really only just notable for that single event.

Looking a the draft, I am still concerned there are citations to unreliable sources that should be removed, including X, LinkdIn and TikTok. The statements they were used to evidence will accordingly need to be significantly trimmed and reworked.

Also, the first 3 paragraphs of the biography give a lot of weight to basically irrelevant material about Cianci's early life: to me they make the draft read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not.

So, having said all that, I think the draft has good potential but I would be much more comfortable accepting it into main space if these suggestions could be implemented.

Please let me know your thoughts. Cabrils (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils. Thank you for the helpful feedback. I have attempted to implement it.

I reduced the content in the first three paragraphs, leaving just her educational background and her employment at the Four Seasons, since it was the subject of several local newspaper articles. I also reworked the the wording of the social media citations.

The Twitter/X citation (which mentions her birthday) is now used in conjunction and article establishing her age in 2023. Taken together, I believe they sufficiently establish her date/year of birth.

The LinkedIn citation now is solely used to establish her educational background.

The two TikTok citations have also been reworked. The first links to her first TikTok video and is used to establish the start of her presence on the platform. The second is used to support her use of TikTok to advocate for HB 2404, and the video is of her saying she supports HB 2404.

I believe that this adequately addresses your concerns. I am happy to make additional changes if you believe they are needed.

~~~~ HannoC (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Beta: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. –HirowoWiki (📝) 01:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and draft improvements on Draft:Nikol Algerdos Kovalchuk

Hello

I believe this draft meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3, which states that a person is presumed notable if *"the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."*

To support this:

I have removed unreliable or non-substantial sources.
I have added several new, reliable secondary sources, including:
- Mountain Life Media
- Vogue Hong Kong
- Men Today Russia

These provide significant and independent coverage of Nikol Kovalchuk’s mountaineering achievements and public presence.

Additionally, I revised the tone and formatting to align with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and biographical style guidelines. The list of achievements now follows a similar tone and structure to that used in Kristin Harila's article.

I also published a COI Disclosure on my Talk page.

Please let me know if further improvements are needed. I welcome any input to help bring this draft up to mainspace standards. Lauravictoriaj (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a user page as it will make communicating much more efficient.

Thank you for the information, and COI declaration.

Could you please provide WP:THREE? Cabrils (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Nikol got coverage in the following mountaineering and lifestyle magazines :

She's got published this week in Harper’s Bazaar Greece and in Marie Claire Russia.

She's just back from climbing Kanchenjunga - completing successfully the 14x8000m summits.

A feat that only a handful of women have accomplished.

I believe she's quite exceptional.

Thank you Lauravictoriaj (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lauravictoriaj, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page as it will make communicating much more efficient.

Thank you for that information. Your edits are a big improvement on the draft.

Thank you for your conflict of interest declaration. You would be aware that given the conflict, the draft needs to clearly meet the relevant requirements for a page on Wikipedia, including notability. There is no doubt Kovalchuk is an accomplished mountaineer, however I still have concerns about her notability. I agree that some of the sources are reliable and contribute towards establishing notability. However, many sources are blogs or private websites. I'm not seeing any substantial articles in notable mountaineering publications like the American Alpine Journal or other publications in this list.

From what I can see, Kovalchuk has climbed as part of paid expeditions on established routes.

As such, I am not yet comfortable with accepting the draft into main space.

I also note your own somewhat chequered history of editing on Wikipedia (as visible on your Talk page).

Having said all that, I do think there is potential for a page for Kovalchuk, but we need to see better, reliable sources to establish her notability, as well as confirmation of each of her assents. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

Latest articles to date about her accomplishement in climbing the 14 eight thousanders :

- Khabarhub

- E News Polar

- Nepal Press

All confirmations of assents can be checked here and the newest ones will be shared once ready.

Thank you Lauravictoriaj (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback and pending changes reviewer granted

Hello Cabrils. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Rollback should never be used to edit war.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing.
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Callanecc! Cabrils (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nathan McCauley

Thanks for reviewing this draft. I answered the question you posed and added one more reference which is more detailed about him and not just the company. Can you revisit the draft and tell me if it’s acceptable? ABBellington (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a user page as it will make communicating much more efficient.

I see you added a comment, and one new reference. Could you please provide WP:THREE as requested (and not just a general comment), which would help the assessment process? Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Ledion Liço

Hi Cabrils,

I have made a number of changes based on your initial feedback—removed some of the weaker sources, added others that are more reliable and independent to draft:Ledion Liço

From what I can tell, the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and the ones for biographies (WP:BIO), with multiple independent sources that cover him in-depth over time.

Also just to note: I don’t have any personal or professional connection to the subject. This is part of a project i am working on to create or improve articles about notable Albanian public figures who aren’t yet represented on Wikipedia, based on reliable sourcing.

Thanks your time and if you take another look, I appreciate. Lanceloth345 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

I see you have added 3 new references:

1. https://www.balkanweb.com/ledion-lico-zgjidhet-si-prezantues-i-big-brother/#gsc.tab=0

This is an article about Big Brother (which the subject is hosting) on a website that seems far from reliable.

2. https://kohajone.com/showbiz/mall-per-te-atin-e-saj-sara-ndan-foton-e-ve%C3%A7ant%C3%AB-me-dritan-hoxh%C3%ABn

This reference does not work (the page reports "ERROR 404").

3. https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/sara-dhe-ledioni-u-martuan-po-mikesha-e-tyre-arbana-ku-ishte

This is a social commentary article about the subject's wedding.

I'm not seeing these new references as sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO.

Again, could you please provide WP:THREE, which would help assess the notability?

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrilis i find other sources that are reputable putlets in Albania even Balkanweb is also..however link below : 1. https://gazetashqiptare.al/2024/01/01/ledion-lico-te-jete-moderator-big-brother-vip-nga-numri-banoreve-deri-tek-luiz-ejlli-sara-hoxha-zbulon-detaje-nga-bbvip-3/ ( it shows his main host of big brother vip (celebrity edition in albania),

2. https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/sonte-finalja-e-top-fest-9. ( he as host of Top Fest Musicaly show )

3.https://dosja.al/newsmobile//85103/ (sjow his positions in media)

are those ok? Thx Lanceloth345 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also this : https://www.oranews.tv/lifestyle/ledion-lico-e-thote-troc-te-qenit-i-famshem-ka-qene-nje-dem-anesor-i1171413 Lanceloth345 (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

& this : https://kohajone.com/aktualitet/pirateria-televizive-ledion-lico-eshte-vjedhje-e-paster-njesoj-sikur-po-vjedh-nje-makine/ Lanceloth345 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lanceloth345,

Thanks for these.

I don't speak Albanian so I am obviously limited in being able to assess these sources, however, with my limited abilities, it looks like the oranews.com and kohajone.com seem reliable. Please add these (appropriately) to the draft and ping me here and I'll re-assess. Cabrils (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: I have made recent changes. Thank you Lanceloth345 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lanceloth345, I've accepted the draft into mainspace. Well done and thanks for your patience! I encourage you to continue, and to be mindful of WP:N and WP:RS. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and i appreciate your advices. Lanceloth345 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Cabrils:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

draft page for review draft:Gjesti

Hi Cabrils, i forgot that i have created before as draft page draft:Gjesti , can you please take a look if it's ok for mainspace? Thank you. Lanceloth345 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]