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.

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]

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]

Hello @Cabrils, i have updated the page with a new citation and also included it in the WP:THREE. Here below if you can check and hopefully you can approve please.

- Content creator Jack Logan produces docu about West Philippine Sea | https://www.abs-cbn.com/lifestyle/2025/5/27/content-creator-jack-logan-produces-docu-about-west-philippine-sea-1300

- As the election season nears, filmmaker and content creator Jack Logan is sounding the alarm on the use of “ayuda,” or financial aid, as a deceptive vote-buying tactic. | https://tribune.net.ph/2025/05/09/jack-logan-warns-dont-be-fooled-by-ayuda-vote-buying

- Vlogger Jack Logan reveals Asian Television Awards nomination | https://mb.com.ph/2023/11/15/vlogger-jack-logan-reveals-asian-television-awards-nomination RavenFireblade (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RavenFireblade, please see my comments on the draft's Talk page for greater transparency. Cabrils (talk) 02:36, 3 June 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]

Hey, I just wanted to ask if you'd had a chance to take a look at these changes. Thanks!

~~~~ HannoC (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HannoC, thanks for the ping. Coincidentally I was looking at this when you posted. Please see me comment on the Talk page of the draft, where I have replied for greater transparency. Cabrils (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cabrils I made some edits per your feedback and left a comment on the draft's talk page. I realized that I forgot to @ you, so am doing so here. I've pasted my comment below for your convenience:

Hello and thank you both for the feedback. I have added a source to the opening statement that I think sufficiently supports it. I've reduced the content in the first three paragraphs a bit further. I did leave in a line about her lawsuit against the four seasons, because it was reported on by several local newspapers and I think is relevant as a lawsuit brought by her against her employer (much like the larger lawsuit against Unleashed brands). I also left in a line about her educational background, which is now tweaked to only rely on a source non-social media source (rather than LinkedIn).

The material about her tiktok posts + HB 2404 has also been changed to solely use non-social media sources.

Currently, the only social media source here is one establishing her birthday, which is used in conjunction with a newpaper article to establish her date of birth.

Is this ok? Thank you again for the feedback.

~~~~ HannoC (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HannoC, apologies for this belated response.

Great work. I think the draft is now looking very good. My only polite request would be to reduce the number of sources referencing the opening sentence of the Biography section, per WP:CITEKILL, and the obvious candidate to remove would be to her X account (which, even in this context, feels a bit promotional).

See what you think and let me know, and then I'd be happy to accept the draft into main space. Cabrils (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cabrils, thanks for the response! I just removed that final X link and resubmitted. Flagging this for you.

~~~~ HannoC (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HannoC Good work. Draft accepted into main space. Thanks for your patience and I encourage you to continue contributing. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils Thank you again for all your help with this! HannoC (talk) 13:18, 13 June 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]

Hi @Lauravictoriaj,

Apologies for such a belated reply.

Thank you for that information.

I have read each link you provided. The last 3 sources you sent are composed of almost identical content which leads me to conclude they are simply the result of a standard press release. At this stage I still don't feel the draft meets notability (in circumstances where you have a declared COI).

The confirmation of accents I referred to was not a request for you to provide me with the certificates: I was seeking verifiable confirmation in published, reliable sources.

Again, while what Kolvachuk has and is achieving is remarkable, none of her accents seem to be new routes, or as a lead climber, rather than as a paying client on a paid expedition ie not completed in a style considered notable in the mountaineering (or wider) community.

Again, I'm sorry to deliver disappointing news, but that is my position at this time. I do encourage you to persevere though, and there may be more RSs out there, or in time. And other reviewers may see it differently than me.

I have copied this thread over to the draft's Talk page for transparency.

All the best. Cabrils (talk) 07:23, 19 June 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 , recently i jave made some changes in sources and structure, can you please take a look if it's ok for mainspace? Thank you, i appreciate your recomandations. Lanceloth345 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hrach Kaprielian

Please consider withdrawing this nomination. I have left comments at the AFD. Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I have replied in the Deletion Discussion. Cabrils (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: James Turner Johnson

Well done on creating the draft, and it likely meets the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF) but requires significant clean up before it could be accepted. As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not; and contains prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK). Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. 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. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NPROF criteria #3, because XXXXX"). Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere. Cabrils (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils. I have made some significant edits to this page. Please take a look at your convenience. My edits include:

Declaring COI on my user page Johnsonashley1 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Designating the WP:THREE and the four areas in which Professor Johnson appears to meet the WP:NPROF on Draft talk:James Turner Johnson .

Attempting to edit or removing excess information from primary sources and WP:PEACOCK language.

Adding three new high-quality secondary sources.

Additionally, I re-published the draft page for fear of losing my edits, but I would like to save it as a non-published draft until the edits are ready to submit again for review for publication. How do I do this? Sincerely, Johnsonashley1 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsonashley1 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnsonashley1, thanks for the ping.

Thank you for your COI declaration (you will see I have fixed it so it now displays properly on your Talk page).

Thank you for that helpful update and the significant and very helpful amendments and explanations. I am confident we will be able to get the draft into a state that I will be happy to accept into main space.

I plan to edit the draft accordingly this week, at which point I will ping you here to see what you think and if you have any thoughts.

Again, well done on the big improvements. Cabrils (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils thank you. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Johnsonashley1 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnsonashley1,

I've done some cleanup on the draft (including some format styling, and added an Infobox) to get it closer to a state that I would be comfortable accepting into main space.

Some more cleanup on the styling of the references is required and I'm hoping you would be content to do this: references should appear before punctuation (see Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help). You will see I started fixing the opening sentences so you can see what is required.

You will see that I created an Infobox, but that have not included all the content you had in the draft, as some of it is not accommodated in the academic infobox template.

Also, in the Books section: I think it is more appropriate to title the section "Selected books" or "Selected bibliography" and to trim the list to only include the more notable or important works, to somewhere between 5 to 10 publications. Your father's CV and Rutgers site can well include his full list.

Also, I didn't address your comment that "I would like to save it as a non-published draft": all versions of drafts/pages exist in the history of the page and can be accessed from the link on the top right of each page "View history".

Please let me know if you have any questions and otherwise ping me when you have had a chance to implement these suggestions and I'd be pleased to take another look. Cabrils (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils. I have made these revisions on Draft talk:James Turner Johnson:

Fixing reference placement.

Shortening/editing the Selected Bibliography.

Please take a look when you can.

Sincerely,

@Johnsonashley1 170.249.163.242 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnsonashley1,

Good work. The draft looks good to me now. Please submit it for review and ping me here, and I'd be pleased to accept it into main space. Cabrils (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CabrilsCabrils,

Thank you for your support and encouragement during this process. I greatly appreciate it. I have just re-submitted the James Turner Johnson page for review.

Sincerely,

@Johnsonashley1 Johnsonashley1 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsonashley1,

Thank you for your kind words, I'm glad I could be of some help.

Page accepted into main space.

All the best. Cabrils (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

draft:Gjesti

Hi @Cabrils:, i forgot that i have created before as draft page draft:Gjesti , recently i jave made some changes in sources and structure, can you please take a look if it's ok for mainspace? Thank you, i appreciate your recommendations. Lanceloth345 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lanceloth345,

Please see my reply on your Talk page, thanks. Cabrils (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabrils i have left at talk page of draft page informations. Thank you Lanceloth345 (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lanceloth345, I have replied on the draft's Talk page thanks. Cabrils (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Juninho Manella

I've removed links I deemed necessary, adjusted some information by separating it into parts, and believe the person in the bio stands out as a digital influencer, YouTuber, and content creator. Sebastiana M.Soares (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if you could please communicate in English, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made the correction to English. Sebastiana M.Soares (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that.

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

Since I declined the draft, you have not added any reliable sources; you have not provided WP:THREE on the Talk page, as requested; and have not clarified whether you have conflict of interest (per WP:COI).

Could you please do so as it will make assessing the draft much easier, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification

Hello, Cabrils,

It would be helpful to admins if, when you move a page from main space to Draft space, you tag the original page for CSD R2 speedy deletion. It's easiest to do if you use Twinkle. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Liz, sorry for creating unnecessary extra work, I didn't realise...Will do going forward. Your advice is much appreciated. Cabrils (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Matatia Foa'i

Dear Cabrils,

Thank you kindly for taking the time to review this article! I've made several revisions in response to the feedback and added a few more independent sources that mention Matatia Foa'i, which I hope help to clarify the subject’s notability. I've also made some adjustments to the citations - moving some and refining others where it made sense. There are still a few references from sites like Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki, FamousFix, and ScreenArchives, which may not meet ideal sourcing standards. I will continue to search for additional reliable sources and add them as I find them. Do you think this would be enough for the article to be restored? I'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback on this so far!

Thank you kindly, Anitanour (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anitanour,

Thanks for the ping.

For efficiency, this is the message I would leave for this draft if it were submitted for review:

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’.

Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc).

Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not.

Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).

Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. 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.

It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess.

----

My general feeling at this stage is that Matatia Foa'i is not sufficiently notable to warrant their own page, but could (should) be mentioned on the Te Vaka page. Possibly it is WP:TOOSOON for his own page. But I won't prejudge things, so see what you can do to the draft in light of my suggestions and then ping me here again and I'd be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query on article decline - Draft:K.P._Thomas_(artist)

Thank you for reviewing my article on K.P. Thomas (artist). The reason has been stated as the artist does not show significant coverage. However as per the basic criteria for notability mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (people) "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the artist about whom the article is drafted does meet this criteria, as he has received significant coverage with articles being specifically about him and his exhibitions conducted (not just in a passing way) in multiple published newspapers that are reliable and considered intellectually independent. The citations are of available newspaper articles online from reputed newspapers in India, including The Hindu, The New Indian Express and Malayala Manorama. The artist has been exhibiting and getting coverage for his works for the last 50+ years, however most of the coverage is old and not available online, still there are enough articles online from credible newspapers which covers him and his artworks significantly. Request you to reconsider the decline and suggest how I can improve the article better and if there is any method by which I can cite coverage on him which is not available online. This is my first article, looking forward to your help and advice. TheNoeticOne (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheNoeticOne,

Thanks for the ping.

To clarify, I did not say the artist does not show significant coverage, I said it was not clear, but that the subject of the draft may well meet the requirements.

Given this is your first article, you have done very well.

As I wrote in my comment on the draft, to help my assessment:

1. Please provide WP:THREE.

2. Please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Also, please read my comment carefully, I left a LOT of information there to help you, including many links that you should go and read carefully also.

Don't forget to also address WP:COI.

And the copyright issue with the image.

Trust this helps. Cabrils (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you so much. Will get back to you with the corrections, appreciate the guidance. TheNoeticOne (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabrils,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article and to respond to my queries.

With respect to WP:THREE, please find the top 3 articles for reference below:

News coverage in The New Indian Express titled 'Existence in pandemic times'; url: https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2023/Mar/10/existence-in-pandemic-times-despair-of-desolate-days-2554601.html
News coverage in Times of India titled 'Veteran artist's brush strokes depict varied shades, themes; url:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/veteran-artists-brush-strokes-depict-varied-shades-themes/articleshow/102707517.cms
News coverage in The New Indian Express titled 'Poignant memories that scream out harsh truths'; url: https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2023/Aug/16/poignant-memories-that-scream-out-harsh-truths-2605573.html

I think the page now meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO criteria of significant coverage as the sources shared address the subject directly and in detail.

I think the page now meets WP:GNG criteria of reliable sources as the sources shared are independent, published and prominent newspapers in India. You may refer the wikipedia pages of the newspapers directly for further verification, The New Indian Express, The Hindu, The Times of India, Malayala Manorama.

I think the page now meets WP:GNG criteria of independence of the subject as the sources are independent news agencies and not affiliated with the subject in any manner.

I think the page now meets WP:GNG criteria for presumption of suitability as there are multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject.

I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria of Well-known and Significant Awards or Honors as the sources have confirmed that the subject is a recipient of the Kerala Lalithakala Akademi Award in 1974.

I confirm that I do not have any relationship with the client, neither am I being paid for the article to be published, I am interested in developing and promoting established artists from my hometown of Kerala, India.

I believe I have addressed the copyright issue with the image. The image was taken by my photographer during the coverage of an art event in the city. He has given me full authority to use the image, I have added the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License for the image.

Request you to reassess the draft and help us with improvements as needed.

TheNoeticOne (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the relevant information to the Draft talk:K.P. Thomas (artist) page as well. Thank you. TheNoeticOne (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNoeticOne, thank you for the information. Who are the other established artists from your hometown of Kerala that you are interested in developing and promoting? Cabrils (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabrils,

Robert Lopez [1] , Babu Xavier [2] and O Sunder [3] are a few of the artists that I wanted to start off with. They have good media attention for their exhibitions. Do you feel that any of these artists would qualify the notability criteria, should I try my first article with a different subject, since I am struggling with the present subject. Maybe my understanding is different, is it because the references shared now are not strong enough or is it because I haven't organized the information correctly? How can I leverage physical media coverage which may not be available online? Please guide me. TheNoeticOne (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNoeticOne,

These are good questions that are probably best asked at the Tea room, where editors with more time than I have can help.

I will say that the draft page is well presented, I just not feeling like those 3 sources meet the level required to meet WP:N. The draft really needs to clearly meet WP:CREATIVE. There is absolutely no restriction or limitation on non-online sources, the issue is whether the sources can be verified. Note that another reviewer has also declined the draft, so there's some consensus there. I do think the page has potential but it just isn't ready yet. There is no problem with the organisation of the information. Please see the links on my original comment for sources which address your question.

I suspect those other artists may well be in a similar position as Thomas: a suitable page with reliable sources may well be possible, you are needing to meet WP:CREATIVE.I am optimistic you could get drafts approved, it just does take some time understanding teh process and requirements.

Let me know if you have any more questions. Cabrils (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils, Thank you so much, I appreciate the guidance. I will go through the pages you have mentioned once again and try to bring more references. If you could help me with just one more question. I have an extensive coverage of the subject in a local magazine in my local language Samakalika Malayalam Vaarika, it is a prominent magazine in Southern India but they have no online presence. Is it possible to get this source verified? And can I use this for WP:THREE? TheNoeticOne (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question for the Tea House! I'm sorry I don't know the answer-- in theory, by citing the magazine properly (title, volume, date published, author etc, it can be verified (being able to be verified is not a process that sources go through, rather it just means that an independent person could go and verify it if they have the time and ability). Having said that, if there was some way the article could be scanned and made available somewhere electronically (without breaching copyright) then the article could be easily and immediately assessed (in terms of reliability, substance, independence etc). But I'm not sure about that process so again, please post a query on the Tea House and feel free to tag me in it so I can also see what other editors think, I'd be interested to know. Cabrils (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thank you once again. Much appreciated. TheNoeticOne (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabrils, I found my way here via TheNoeticOne's question at the Teahouse. Just want to note that per Offline sources, a source not being available online generally has no bearing on whether it's reliable (us historians would be in big trouble if it did). There's no need to routinely scan and upload print sources, especially as this could lead to copyright issues. However, it can be useful to keep a scan or photocopy of an offline source just in case someone later wants to challenge a reference. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ClaudineChionh, Thank you for the response; it is much appreciated. I have a small question: Can I use such references as part of WP:THREE? If so, how do I show it in my article's draft talk page? Shall I just cite them in the regular format, similar to how I would do in the article? TheNoeticOne (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ClaudineChionh, yes I'm aware that offline sources are fine (I use them all the time), but if there was a way to share obscure ones, in a manner that did not breach copyright, it would help with assessing the notability of a subject. Thanks for your help! Cabrils (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────┘
TheNoeticOne: All sources should be cited in the body of the draft/article as described in Citing sources. Reviewers may ask the "three best sources" question if we are uncertain of the quality of your sources and whether they support the text. This is why it can be helpful to have your own copy of a source; if all of your best sources are offline, a reviewer might request a copy which you can send through email or a private file-sharing service. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Thank you so much, I understand now.

@Cabrils I have updated the citations based on the guidance received. I have also updated the WP: THREE references in the article's draft talk. Request you to reassess the article and suggest any further corrections. TheNoeticOne (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Joshua Spodek

Hi @Cabrils,

Thank you for reviewing my article last time and sharing brief and helpful comments on the same. I went through your comments and tried to address them and re-work on them and also added new citations as per the latest research and removed old ones which were not relevant and worthy, tried to rework on the grammar part, also added reasons on the talk page! I hope the page now meets the notability and other relevant criteria, and also let me know if anything I can work on to improve the same. Thank You Techy.Sap (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Techy.Sap, please see my comment on the draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: K. P. Thomas

Hi @Cabrils, I have revised the draft based on your feedback, added new citations for WP:THREE and given explanations for WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS in the draft talk page. Thank you for the detailed feedback. For the sources that are offline, I can share a scan copy with you for review as needed. I have read and incorporated all the articles you shared, as best I could. Could you please review the draft and let me know if there's anything I can do to improve it further? TheNoeticOne (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNoeticOne, I'm just coming back to look at this now and I see the draft has since been published by another reviewer, so well done, and thank you for the progressive collaboration. Cabrils (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils, Thank you so much, this wouldn't have been possible without your guidance. I truly appreciate your feedback and time. TheNoeticOne (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNoeticOne Thank you for your patience and I encourage you to continue to develop your skills and contributions! Please reach out if there's anything I can help with in the future. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me with my first article. TheNoeticOne (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyan Ta'eed

Hello - Thank you for reviewing my draft on Cyan Ta'eed. I have made your suggested updates and resubmitted it.

I have reviewed and familiarized myself with all the pages you have mentioned. Also I have no connection to this person or vested interest in her or her work. I believe this page now meets criteria for WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG

I have made more updates to remove the promotional language so it is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia. The awards she has received are what helps establish her notability but open to your suggestions there if you feel it still reads as too promotional.

Here are four reliable sources that establish notability:

Would you mind reviewing again? Thank you! JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply and helpful information.

Given this is your first article, and you say you have no connection to this person or vested interest in her, what inspired you to create this draft? Cabrils (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find topics to write about that do not already have a page. I came across her while researching female entrepreneurs. She met the notability guidelines and had good sources, so I thought she’d be a good subject for a new article. JazzyOxygen (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JazzyOxygen,

I take that onboard, thanks.

In relation to Ta'eed meeting notability and the sources you nominate:

1 & 2: Both the SMH and Age articles are by Fairfax journalist Cara Waters, albeit 3 years apart. But I agree they are both substantially about Ta'eed.

3. The Forbes article is more scant.

4. The AFR is reasonably substantive about Cyan (although is more focused on her and her husband's joint company Envato).

I can't help feeling this is a promotional page, and despite your assertions I can't shake the feeling that you do in fact have a COI (either you are the subject, know the subject or are a paid editor). However, what matters is that on balance I think there is enough RS here to meet the relevant criteria so I have accepted the draft into main space. Well done. Cabrils (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I am not a paid editor nor do I have any vested interest in that person. I also noticed her company that she founded did not have a page and was going to do that one next. However, in a small effort to earn your trust, I will leave that one alone now Thank you for your guidance and support. JazzyOxygen (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JazzyOxygen, that's very generous, but please feel free to edit as you wish, and I encourage you to post draft pages via the New Articles for Creation page like what you did for Ta'eed, where I trust your drafts will be assessed on merit and according to the guidelines, not some personal whim of any reviewer, which frankly has no place in the reviewing process. If I can be of any assistance in the future please don't hesitate to ping me, I'd be happy to help. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Hrach Kaprielian AFD]

While this may not change the outcome at this point, I'd like to clarify something from the AFD discussion. You mentioned that my input would carry less weight because I was the page's author, but that's not accurate. I didn't create this page – another editor originally wrote it, and I simply made improvements when I encountered it. Additionally, regarding the foreign language citations, tools like Google Translate and AI make it possible to verify sources in other languages without being fluent in them. I was able to review the Armenian articles this way, so language barriers are less of an obstacle for citation verification than they once were. Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mysecretgarden,

Thank you for those points. To be fair, I agree you did not create the page, but you certainly made substantive, significant edits to the page after I nominated it for deletion, after I made my comment that you were the page's author, and looking at your edits you certainly authored a significant amount of the page.

Regarding foreign languages: others may be comfortable relying on the tools you propose (and it's wonderful they are developing at such a rate) but at this point I don't feel comfortable relying solely on them to make assessments in these kind of circumstances, which is why I abstained form further commenting, as I explained.

I am happy for you that the outcome of the discussion was to keep the page, no doubt due to your substantive improvements, so well done for that. Cabrils (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jianjie Ma

Hi. I have added Draft:Jianjie Ma in the list of projects on my userpage. Once you accept, I will update the link with the page link. HRShami (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HRShami, thanks. Draft accepted, good work. Cabrils (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HRShami (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June Backlog Drive is almost over!

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 800 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Reassessment: Draft:Keith Evan Green

Hello Cabrils,

Thanks for your thoughtful review of the draft article, Keith Evan Green. I revised the draft in response to your feedback, including:

Rewriting for a more neutral, encyclopedic tone (per WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOT),
Declaring my conflict of interest on the article’s Talk page as the subject of the draft.

On the Talk page of the draft, I identified three independent, reliable sources that I believe satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion #1, and I have invited review by Wikipedia editors.

If you have a moment, I welcome your taking another look.

Here is the draft: Draft:Keith Evan Green

Thanks again for your time and contributions.

Best regards, Keg95 (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keg95,

As I commented on the Draft:

COI declaration needs to be added to YOUR User Talk page, per WP:COI.

Further, this draft was previously declined. You removed the decline notifications. Do NOT remove these notifications, they are a record of the page history and are highly relevant to reviewers of the draft.

Additionally, I encourage you create a User Page which will make communicating much more efficient. Cabrils (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cabrils, for your time reviewing my draft. I'm not going to pursue this article further. I got the idea to draft this article by a long standing Wikipedia editor (verified by me) who offered to draft the same, based on what he learned of my record as an academic, surely at some cost to me. Instead of responding to his solicitation, I elected to draft my own article, since declined. I'll leave the article as such and move on to other things. Thanks again -- I learned something more about Wikipedia in the process. 2603:7080:A33E:4DA4:1D0A:98BA:2220:7E1 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed you feel that way. I believe the draft is close to meeting the relevant criteria and I would be happy to help work on it to get it over the line. I think it would be a worthy contribution to Wikipedia.

Could you please just clarify the nature of the conflict of interest: are you Keith Green? COIs are far from fatal, the draft just needs to very clearly meet the notability criteria. Cabrils (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cabrils,

Thank you for your encouragement. I noted my COI just now in my User Talk page, not only in my draft article page. I am the author of Keith_Evan-Green -- I am the subject, hence the COI as originally disclosed upon the early submission of the article draft. I welcome your guidance to advance the draft article. Thanks. Keg95 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith.

Glad you came back to me.

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

Something that would help the draft, and add to meeting WP:AUTHOR would be reviews of your books. If you know of any, could you please send me the links?

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabrils,

I have created a User Page. Would you like to use the User Page to communicate instead of having this exchange through your Talk page?

Here are considerations of my books (not yet integrated into my draft):

- for my book Architectural Robotics: Ecosystems of Bits, Bytes, and Biology:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27310456-architectural-robotics.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Architectural_Robotics.html?id=Ts2MEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

https://mitpress.mit.edu/national-robotics-week-architectural-robotics/

- for my book Gio Ponti and Carlo Mollino: Post-war Italian Architects and the Relevance of Their Work Today:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1046987.Gio_Ponti_and_Carlo_Mollino

Thanks for your time. Keg95 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Keg95,

Thanks for these. Any book reviews need to meet WP:RS, so any reviews from Goodreads, Amazon etc are not suitable. MIT is the publisher so doesn't meet WP:RS either because it is not independent. I am trying to see if we can meet WP:AUTHOR. If not we will be restricted to either WP:ANYBIO (broadly) or WP:NPROF. Cabrils (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hamish McRae

Dear Cabrils,

Thank you so much for reviewing my draft for Hamish McRae and for your feedback regarding the broken link references 7 and 9. I have fixed both of them now and I'd be very grateful if you could take a look when you get a chance. Thanks! Seren98 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seren98,

Thanks for the ping.

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

Thanks for fixing those links.

If you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Could you kindly let me know? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Cabrils for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Brenda Moore

Hey!

I added the WP:THREE best sources for notability to the draft's talk page as you suggested.

Also, I amended the language to be less promotional and compliant with WP:PEACOCK.

Finally, on my talk page, I had some questions for you regarding the image I used as well as a full explanation of the sources and Moore's notability.

Should I resubmit it? I would very much appreciate it if you could look it over!

Thanks! J anaya05 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Please address whether you have a conflict of interest, and if so, declare it per the guidelines as explained in my comment on the draft. Thank you. Cabrils (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any connection to the subject, I am not the subject, and I am not being paid by the subject. J anaya05 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you.

Please see my reply to WP:THREE on the draft's Talk page.

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just resubmitted it! J anaya05 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article accepted, good work. Cabrils (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anthony J. Ferrante

Hello @Cabrils! Thanks for your attention to the draft! I read your comment. I added the necessary links where the “citation needed” tag was.

It seems to me that the person is notable by Wikipedia standards. I believe the article satisfies WP:ANYBIO criterion #2, because Ferrante's role in coordinating the federal response to Russian cyber‑operations against US election infrastructure is "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" in the field of election security and cybersecurity.

And if anything, I don't have any conflict of interest.

Would you mind taking another look?

Thank you! Nyxalith (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyxalith,

Thanks for that.

Draft accepted. Well done. Cabrils (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 AfC backlog drive award

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This is awarded to Cabrils for accumulating more than 75 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stephen A. Morreale notability

Hello Cabrils! Thanks so much for your message. I made some updates to my page on Stephen Morreale. At your convenience, are you able to take a look? I shared a note on notability and added more external sources. Thank you! KMM1017 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KMM1017,

Thanks for the ping.

OK, so a few things:

1. Thank you for declaring a conflict of interest on the draft's Talk page. However, as I said in my comment "if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link)." So please add a COI declaration to your Talk page.

Also, what is the nature of your conflict of interest? For example, are you the subject Stephen Morreale? Are you being paid?

2. Notability: Thank you for that lengthy list of sources, however given reviewers like me are volunteers our time is limited so again, as I explained 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.

It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX")".

So please identify the best 3 reliable sources. And identify with specificity exactly the criteria you believe the page meets. Doing this will be very helpful and help expedite the reviewing process.

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply @Cabrils and apologies for the back and forth - I'm new to this so greatly appreciate the guidance!

I added the COI declaration to my talk page. Stephen is my father, and I am not being paid.

I believe he meets WP:ACADEMIC criteria due in part to his selection as a Fulbright Scholar/Specialist (link included below)

Fulbright Ireland Alumni Profile

URL: https://fulbright.ie/custom_alumni/stephen-a-morreale/

Source: Official Fulbright Ireland website (U.S. State Department program)

Content: Fulbright Specialist status, biographical information, 9/11 response recognition

Here are 3 sources

Things Police See Podcast: https://thingspolicesee.com/tps-e78-dr-stephen-morreale-dea-agent-ret/

https://medium.com/%40letradioshow/the-media-and-hollywoods-influence-vs-reality-drug-gangs-and-police-80e187522f4e

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/21/metro/family-devastated-by-death-27-year-old-leominster-marine-who-died-nato-training-exercise-norway/

I believe the following helps establish notability as well:

Government service documentation (Distinguished Service Award, official positions)

Academic and professional recognition is well-documented

Contemporary media coverage exists (Spectrum News, Boston Globe)

Third-party institutional recognition is confirmed (Fulbright, university positions)

The lack of DEA-era news coverage is expected rather than concerning for Wikipedia's notability standards

I hope this helps! Please let me know if I've missed anything - and as always, thank you for your review and thoughtful feedback. KMM1017 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KMM1017,

Thank you fro all this.

1. COI: OK, thanks.

2. WP:THREE: These sources need to be "reliable sources" as defined: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (see WP:RS)). So there are some issues with the sources you suggested:

i. Podcast: this is not considered a reliable source (see WP:RS/SPS).

ii. Medium: this is not considered a reliable source because anyone can write an article on Medium and there is no process for "checking the facts or with no editorial oversight" (see WP:QUESTIONABLE).

iii. Boston Globe is a reliable source. However, the mentioning of your father in this article is in passing and not what would be considered "significant coverage". So while the publication is reliable per se, this article it is not considered a RS for the purposes of establishing notability of your father because it's such a passing mention. Put another way, if we could find two clearly RSs, I would accept this as the third because it clearly identifies your father as "professor and chair of the criminal justice department". But we're really looking for articles that are substantially about him.

3. WP:ACADEMIC/WP:NPROF: As far as I can assess, we need the draft to meet the relevant criteria in either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. I think the draft has potential but don't see it clearly establishing the required criteria, especially given your COI which has the effect of lifting the bar higher. The Fulbright Scholarship clearly adds weight.

Also, to me the draft reads too much like a promotional CV. The last 2 sections are unreferenced and so should be removed or supported by independent reliable sources.

I know this is a lot to take in, so take some time to absorb this. I would also encourage you to seek some help at the WP:TEAHOUSE where you may be able to find an editor who is willing to give you more assistance.

I encourage you to persevere though as I do think the draft has very good potential. Cabrils (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lindsay Levin

Thanks ever so much for your kind and helpful review! I've followed your guidelines, trying to make it sound less like a CV, and also incorporating more independent sourcing. Please would you take another look a the draft (and talk page?) Viljowf (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viljowf,

Could you please address whether you have a conflict of interest? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Cabrils, yes, I indicated so in the edit history and there is a general notice on my talk page about my paid work. Viljowf (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viljowf,

I don't understand what you mean by "I indicated so in the edit history"?

If by "general notice" you mean the "WP:PAID disclosure", I don't consider that meeting the requirement of "WP:COI" including but not limited to "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation." See also WP:PAY.

Please also see my reply on the draft's Talk page.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, there’s a disclosure notice if you scroll right back in the edit history. The edit history is listed as a legit place to disclose the COI, and I have done so. Viljowf (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viljowf thanks for the clarification. Not to get side-tracked (the focus remains on the content of the draft), but where in the edit history is the disclosure notice? And I might be missing something, but where is the edit history listed as a legit place to disclose COI? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, edit summaries are included as one of the three legit ways of disclosing paid edits in WP:PAID. The disclosure is at the point where I moved it into the draft space. Thanks again! Viljowf (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, thanks again, I've responded to your queries on the talk page of the draft. One link was broken, and I've explained why the other sources meets WP:RS. Thanks again! Viljowf (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viljowf,

Your clarifications and repairs helped considerably. I feel the draft now meets the relevant requirements.

However, because a page on Levin was previously deleted and was repeatedly recreated by advertising-orientated editor/s, a protection was placed on the name "Lindsay Levin" which prevents me from accepting the page into main space. I have contacted the admin who placed that protection and await their response. Cabrils (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help, Cabrils! Really appreciate it! Viljowf (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Cabrils. I've posted a query on the "protected pages" log, and here is the answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/07&oldid=1303335253 Would you kindly be able to approve the page in the AfC and then I can contact and admin to enable the move? Viljowf (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reassessment

Reassessment Kblair17 (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kblair17 Some clue as to what you are talking about would be greatly appreciated...Please provide a link to the draft page. Cabrils (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pleqse help me out!

hi Cabrils! could you please be more specific about the decline. Thank you so much 🙏🏼 Submoave (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Submoave, I could be more specific if you could be more specific and identify what page you are talking about...Please provide a link to the draft page. Cabrils (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mario Pinto

I've fixed the problems with the draft I made SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]