User talk: Sophisticatedevening

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Sophisticatedevening}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

It is 7:19 PM where I live. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day I may well not be online. For accurate time please the page.

Multiple rejects

 Courtesy link: Draft:Julian Gualtieri

Hi Sophisticatedevening, Nice to meet you. The above draft has been resubmitted again. I don't think any major improvement has been made. Just thought I would let you know! Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it's an obvious new sock of User:Editor x45, I've removed the template and filed a new SPI report. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth sending to MfD at this point as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Would you send it to MfD or do you want me too.

While we are here, I also rejected this draft which you removed the copyright from. Was that unnecessary? Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I personally like to wait for at least 2-3 notability declines before considering a notability rejection, but if it was obviously never going to pass WP:NBOOK then I'd say it's fine. I didn't do a source check there after I quick failed for the copyvio so it is a possibility. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I will remember for next time! Would Julian Gualtieri be eligible for G5 and salting (once the SPI case is closed)? Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be for G5 since the sock didn't technically create it and it hasn't been repeatedly created. Ideally we would just wait either for someone else to pick it up or for G13, so I would just leave it. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Your rejection of my draft page

Hi

You recently rejected my draft page “List of Essex T20 cricket records” on the grounds that it did not have reliable sources. Whilst there is nothing in the references section, each table has the its source listed as the website “CricketArchive”. This is the same as the page “List of Essex List A cricket records” which is already live, so I assumed this would be OK. Do I still need to add something to the reference section?

Thanks Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The only source given is the CricketArchive, which gives no indication that it is vetted or reviewed by anyone. There is nothing else there to support the information, and therefore it is not adequately by reliable sources for me to verify the information. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi

I’m not sure how to proceed now. What sort of sources can I use? Is there a list of “vetted or reviewed sources”?

CricketArchive is given as a source for many cricket related Wikipedia pages.

Thanks Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

There's not really a comprehensive list of vetted ones since there are so many websites, but there is WP:RS/P for a list of sites that are not reliable, and WP:NPPSG for an expanded list. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Realised I didn’t include a link to the page I modelled mine on. This is it:

List of Essex List A cricket records Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Also your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection has a very specific meaning in that you cannot resubmit it. Since it was declined, you are free to resubmit it in the future. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2025 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2025 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April 2025 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2025 coordinator election, Wracking stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, and Mox Eden were reelected coordinators, and IQR and WikiEditor5678910 were newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 55 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive 33 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 611,404 words in 237 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 14 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 10 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 46,749 words in 18 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 47 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. 28 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 479,172 words in 207 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 13 to 19 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 9:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 89 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,264 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, IQR, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and WikiEditor5678910. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I need your help

So, i made an edit, on Moroccans where i added internal links to related Wikipedia pages, but it got Removed, so i edited it again and someone else reverted my edit.

I don't want to edit war but i think my edit is helpful and connects Wikipedia pages together as the numbers represent Moroccans on that country so it makes sense to show Moroccans on that country when you click on the link right? Any suggestions on what i can do about it? Sugarcane juice (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

So first I appreciate the attempt to not edit war, it can be a very slippery slope sometimes. The first thing you should do is discuss on the article's talk page. There is a process called "bold, revert, discuss" that has some really good guidance on these situations. My advice is to make a new section on the talk page, ping the editors who reverted and explain why you think the links would be good for the article. I would also give WP:DISPUTE and WP:3RR a read for more information and some next steps going forward. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll read the articles you mentioned and ping them on the talk page to talk about it and explain my points, thanks for your help! Sugarcane juice (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Laurens van der Maaten draft review

Thanks for taking the time to look at my draft article on Laurens van der Maaten. I'm new to article creation on Wikipedia and would love more specific feedback on how to improve the article. Given that Laurens is the author of several technologies (t-SNE and LLaMa) that already have their own articles, I strongly believe that he is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. BigAppleTea (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If the person is notable, then the article needs to show that through independent, secondary and reliable soures. That means no interviews, personal/company websites, etc. Right now the article does not show evidence that he is actually notable, and it needs those sources in the article if you can find them. Feel free to resubmit when you're ready, Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Understood! Another question - would you consider sources such as his highly cited scientific articles to be sufficient here? While Laurens himself keeps a relatively low public profile, his scientific contributions are clearly notable.

I'm open to the idea that a scientist with several notable scientific contributions (that have their own independent wiki articles nonetheless!) is not considered sufficiently notable because of their low public profile, but that is something I would want you to be explicit about here.

On a more meta note, one wonders if there should be some threshold of citations after which a scientist becomes sufficiently notable - If "widespread citation" is sufficient for proving the reliability of a source, perhaps it could also be sufficient for proving the notability of a scientist!

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to help me with the first article I'm trying to create :) BigAppleTea (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It is possible that some of his contributions are notable, however that does not necessarily mean that he himself is notable. It doesn't really matter how cited or popular his scientific articles are in terms of notability, if the only things about him published online or otherwise are written by him, then it is likely that he isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, none of the sources in the article I provided are written by him, though I do admit they are not as mainstream of sources as would be ideal.

Thanks for the clarity re: notability of science vs the scientist. I'll leave the article in draft format for now until more is published about him. BigAppleTea (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Pan-Mass Challenge

Hi! Just sharing a belated heads up that I replied to your feedback at Talk:Pan-Mass Challenge. I listed three proposed updates at the bottom of our discussion. Would love your eyes if you have a moment! Thank you kindly. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Those look good now, thanks for revising them. I'll try implement those later today when I get a chance, cheers. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

GARC

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Model Citizen. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #35. 750h+ 02:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Parasitic ant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Parasitic ant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GGOTCC -- GGOTCC (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:STRLGHT

Hi, I noticed you've declined my Draft Article about the electronic music producer STRLGHT, I have rewrote the draft and added multiple sources. I hope its good now. If however you won't allow it, please explain to me what i did wrong, i will correct anything thats wrong as soon as possible. To8zljghvru (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Spotify is the only source cited, and it is not a reliable source, so I still do not see notability. I do not review the same draft twice however, so another reviewer will take a look at it and assess it when they get a chance. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't find any other sources, what sources should i use? To8zljghvru (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are unable to find any reliable sources for them, then they are likely not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I'll just won't write any articles on wikipedia anymore. To8zljghvru (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

To8zljghvru: You're welcome to help improve existing articles, and this will give you the practice you'll need for your first article. (talk page gnome)— ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your cooperation on Parasitic ant and your willingness to improve the article! It can be discouraging as this is your first time in the GA process, but we will get there soon! GGOTCC 03:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! The TTS advice was really helpful btw. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Junghun Choi

Hello, thank you for your previous reviews.

This draft has now been updated with reliable and independent secondary sources (Forbes Korea, Chosun Biz, Yonhap, etc.) and all citations are properly formatted with <ref> tags using {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help). Primary sources have been removed.

Please kindly reconsider for review.

— User:방명호 방명호 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I usually do not review the same draft twice, however you can resubmit the draft and another reviewer will take a look at it when they get a chance. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Parasitic ant

The article Parasitic ant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Parasitic ant for comments about the article, and Talk:Parasitic ant/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GGOTCC -- GGOTCC (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Weigela florida

Weigela florida has been deleted G6. Please proceed with draft acceptance. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Sophisticatedevening. Thank you for your work on Pop festivals. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sophisticatedevening, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Sohom (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Mistake

My apologies. I, by mistake, posted the article Autorretrato (Carla Accardi). This article is intended for the Portuguese Wikipedia. Please delete it. Greetings, Dinho Aarão (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I personally cannot delete it, however you can add {{Db-g7}} and an administrator will come along and delete it. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Per the above,  Done. Sohom (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

hey there Sophisticatedevening, you had one job

i'm need editing Amouna (a show on Majid), more episodes needed, references needed, more characters needed, ALL NEED HELP!! Amounafan2008 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Friend's birthday

Hello, my friend Joe's birthday is coming up. Please can you allow this to be published so he can see it, I would really appreciate it. CiaranT7 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, he is still subject to the same general notability guidelines as everyone else regardless of his birthday. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Meredith Lawson-Rowe

Hey, I saw your comment on the AfC draft I made. I've added as many sources that are relevant and cover her as possible (plus a few more since the comment), but because she's a newer state representative, she has less coverage than others. Nahida 🌷 14:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks better now, it's usually a good idea to veer away from sourcing people's employers, even if they are government workers. Thanks for working on it. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

A smaller thing I wanted to note, I saw the notification got sent to User talk:Nahida~enwiki. It might just be a technical thing because I had my account renamed not that long ago but I don't control that account and it was made in 2015. My actual user talk is here. Nahida 🌷 14:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, that talk page should have been redirected to your new one during the renaming. I personally would BLAR it to avoid more misplaced messages, especially with ones produced by scripts. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Hello Sophisticatedevening, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just a note that the bot did not remove it from the page yet (but should have) since it an encountered an error. Sorry for any inconvenience. Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

Can you suggest which changes are important in Ardhavatrao? Morekar (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Multiple statements (including the very first sentence) like Ardhavatrao, also known as Mr. Crazy, is a legendary Indian puppet character created in 1916 by pioneering ventriloquist and puppeteer Yeshwant Keshav Padhye. is not written in a NPOV. "Legendary" and "Pioneering" are peacock terms that need to be eliminated. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You have discovered marketing buzzspeak. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The Gaming of Names

You have discovered the gaming of names, that is, of article titles. Yes, it is a common trick to add a disambiguator to a draft title or article title, especially when the primary title is salted, or when the primary title is about to be salted. It is also common to use different spellings in the Latin alphabet for names whose native form is non-Latin, that is, different transliterations from Asian names. You said that the draft had been created 9 times. I assume that you were adding up all of the forms of her name, because I don't see 9 versions, but I wasn't trying to count them. I suppose you saw that she was called {model) and (Burmese model). Occasionally titles have to be put on the Title Blacklist. Thanks for the gnome work. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I was only counting the mainspace and draftspace deletions of the base name alone [1] [2], I didn't even notice the deletions with the disambiguators. Yikes. Not sure if it is blacklist worthy (yet), but I probably should've requested salts. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh. You were only counting the main and draft G5 deletions. It's worse than it looks. However, I and some other reviewers think that it is best not to salt titles in draft space. One reason is that if the title is salted in draft space, the fans or socks are even more likely to use disambiguators or misspellings. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

One more comment. Many reviewers are inclined to assume paid editing when they encounter gaming of names. However, my assessment is that they may be either paid editors or ultras, fanatical supporters of actors and entertainers, sports teams, etc. That is, they may just be stubborn rather than corrupt. That is similar to Hanlon's Razor. We still have to keep their crud out of article space, but they may not be paid editors. In this case, the use of sockpuppets is suggestive of paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

5 May 2025

Hi -

Thank you so much for reviewing my recent draft article. How many new articles, which hypothetically would be relevant, would the page need in order to qualify? From a scale of 1-10 how good does the page look now? Hickory3435 (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no magic number for how many articles you need to source, however it is best to provide at least WP:THREE independent, reliable and secondary sources to help prove their notability. On your draft I do still see company websites, which do not help contribute towards evidencing notability, and the Financial Times and TAPinto sources only have brief mentions. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi -

I think you might want to review the article again. I cited an additional article I found. Cheers. Hickory3435 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I usually do not re-review the same article twice just in the interest of fairness, but if you resubmitted it another reviewer will get to soon. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you think you could tell me if the new source would count towards notability at least? Hickory3435 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that works, helps contribute to their notability. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you think it's worthy of resubmission? Hickory3435 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I still don't really see it passing myself but you're welcome to resubmit for a second opinion. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I shortened the article and infobox to reflect nascent yet limited notability, and added a new tag, "finance and investment." Maybe now it could pass. Resubmitted as well. Hickory3435 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Sophisticatedevening/TopButtons

why dont you combine them into one? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 13:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Cool script, nonetheless. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 13:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme Here you go User:Sophisticatedevening/AllButtons.js Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 09:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors

Thanks for reviewing my article. While I understand the importance of citing reliable sources, I would like to clarify that my article is not presenting an entire academic field, but rather a specific journal. I am not aware of any sources that directly discuss the journal in detail. Why would such sources even be necessary? The journal in question has a 14-year history and is well recognized within its field. I have seen Wikipedia articles on comparable journals—such as The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology—that cite fewer sources.

I would greatly appreciate more specific guidance regarding the types of additional sources that would be considered appropriate, beyond the official bibliometric data I have already included.

Thank you again for your time and feedback Mickael303134 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources that actually discuss the journal are very important as without them, there is no evidence of their notability and how they pass WP:GNG. While it may have been around for 14 years, that still does not evidence it's notability alone. If you are unable to identify any sources in detail, then it is unlikely it will pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS in the near future. As for the International Journal, please see WP:WHATABOUT, as just because other stuff exists with less sources, that does not mean that they pass notability guidelines either. Your draft needs to contain sources that are independent, reliable, secondary and have provide significant coverage about the journal, so no articles from the journal itself. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The journal is indexed in several recognized databases, including Scopus, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX, which attests to its visibility and recognition within the scientific community. Those are fully independant and serious sources. Regarding other sources, I would be happy to have some examples? Thanks a lot again. Mickael303134 (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

While it may be indexed by a database, that is not significant coverage of the journal and doesn't really help notability. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Parasitic ant

On 7 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Parasitic ant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that queen parasitic ants can lay their own eggs inside of a host's colony? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Parasitic ants. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Parasitic ant), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher Mellon AfC review inquiry

Draft:Christopher Mellon...

Thank for your review. I have a concern. You wrote as the edit summary:

I'm afraid that after spotchecks I do not see this passing WP:GNG. The article is still ref bombed with reliable looking titles, but very little content about him as a person.

And the full decline:

I'm afraid that after spotchecks I do not see this passing WP:GNG. The article is still ref bombed with reliable looking titles, but very little content about him as a person. Take the space.com one for example. He is mentioned a single time, and not even a whole sentence, just the ending. Then take Washington Post. Again, barely any actual content about him, it just name dropped. CBS news, just a short transcript of an interview with him. This does nothing for notability at all. Ref after ref, and I still don't see it. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, just a few sentences, one of which is just a quote he said. I am not at all confident that if this were to be moved to mainspace, this wouldn't just be deleted again at WP:AFD.

You began and ended about 28 minutes later, to read a dense 1,996 word article (6-8 pages printed) plus the time to "spot check" the citations, and write out your responses?

The article sources detailed here: Draft talk:Christopher Mellon#Notability and References analysis show up to ten (10) WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS compliant sources, with over 2,800 words about the WP:BLP subject.

There's already at least one person who was tough on the sources saying they would !vote Keep at Afd based on my draft.

Can I ask how you were able to analyze all this so incredibly quickly and come to this conclusion? Can you please explain the policy/rules based errors I have in my comprehensive review of the sourcing on that talk page? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort you took to provide your own source assessment, I do disagree in that I do not see the WP:SIGCOV needed despite the table. I outlined the summary of my check in the decline reason, so I'll reiterate here. What is provided right now are mentions in a bunch of reliable sources. But just name-dropping him isn't enough, and as I said before, I do not think this would survive an AfD if accepted. As for the time, I don't see how me spending 30 minutes reviewing through this is "quick", given all of your sources are online. The word count and prose is fine, but that's just not the issue here. I never saw or stated that I saw any "policy/rules based errors", and I still don't. Again, I appreciate the effort, but I don't see a WP:GNG pass here. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

May I ask you to reconsider Draft:Christopher Mellon, and give the article and sourcing a more thorough review given I've uncovered a book published by the Brookings Institution by notable author Susan L. Marquis, which substantially covers, addressed, and reinforces Mellon's role in the creation of the United States Special Operations Command? It was previously limiting in sourcing to Boykin on that, but this book (1997, my edition is 2011) is an exemplary source.

Details on Marquis source: Draft talk:Christopher Mellon#Susan Marquis

I've also uncovered a major controversy he was involved in during his secoond Senate career, to the point he was personally defended in the Wall Street Journal by US Senator Richard J. Durbin. We've now got him on likely notability for his role in creating USSOCOM, being a Mellon, his Department of Defense work, his role in oversight of the National Security Agency to the point upset the White House during the Iraq War, all from 1985-2016, and only then are we even getting to his UFO-related affairs since then. Everything before the UFOs is around 2/3 of the article--the UFOs only come at the end, which itself is a notability boost on the sourcing.

Substantial expansion: Draft:Christopher Mellon (Diff 1289360122)

Thanks for your time. I'm genuinely struggling to fathom how he's not notable for WP:GNG based on the several substantial pieces on him and his career. This article would be a trivial AfD Keep as written. As @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: wrote on the talk page there, "GNG allows for 'many streams make a river' when source content is more than a trivial mention. If this was an afd, I'd say keep based on these sources." -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Just in the interest of fairness, I usually do not review the same draft twice. If you have found better sourcing and believe it meets WP:GNG now, then I encourage you to resubmit it and another reviewer will get to it when they have a chance. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Review

Hi. Sorry to randomly contact you but I have a question.. I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly a decade now but only recently started to make a habit of doing it daily so there is many things I am still learning. I recently got a notification saying you reviewed an article I created. What does that mean? I apologize for an obvious newbie question even though I'm not really a newbie, just uninformed 😅.. I would greatly appreciate you telling me what that is all about and what it means whenever you do it? If you do not have time to answer, I completely understand. But hope to hear back from you soon.. Thanks! Bruteforce7700 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh no worries, so there's this kind of system in place called New Pages Patrol to help control the influx and "quality" of new articles. When articles are first created, moved to mainspace or created from a redirect, they need a special flag to them that allows the article to be indexed by search engines. People with the New Page Reviewer user group have the ability to kinda set that flag and allow it to be indexed after they examine if it needs CSD, PROD, Maintenance tagging etc. If the article is fine, it's marked as reviewed and nominated/deleted if not. Just kind of a method to help deal with problematic pages. I think I reviewed one of your articles so once the search engines/scrapers get to it it'll show up on Google and LLMs. I'm actually just reviewing for the May backlog drive, you should sign up or request at WP:PERM if your're interested in that kinda stuff. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Request on 20:44:35, 8 May 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by IvanBrajkovic

• IvanBrajkovic (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kraj Programa (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello!

I am wondering about the references I added while submitting Kraj Programa article. The references posted are all articles from well known publications in Croatia, but they are, of course, in Croatian language. The references talk about the bands sound, live energy and ethos. The article was declined because of the references and I am not sure why.

Could you please provide more insight what is expected from the references?

Thank you in advance!

Regards, Ivan

IvanBrajkovic (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The language isn't really the problem all are acceptable, it's that the coverage isn't really about the band itself, it's about other events that the band is either a part of, opening for, etc. That isn't the significant coverage needed for WP:NBAND. I also see interviews, which don't help since it is just the member talking about themself. Take the Avril Lavigne one from index.hr for example, I only see 1 sentence with the band. Then the torpedo.media; the article isn't about the band, it's about a music event that they closed and they were only given a few sentences to at the end. Also on a lesser note the article prose needs some work for neutrality as phrases like The band is known for its "do it yourself" approach, years of dedication, and focus on quality is not reflective of a neutral point of view. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I Thought I Was Better Than You

The blocking redirect at I Thought I Was Better Than You has been deleted. — Cyrius|✎ 23:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

what does this mean?

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." how can I make Draft:Path to the Moon (1956 song) better? Can I have suggestions? TheNonEditor (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend taking a look at some of the notability guidelines for this like WP:NSONG and the rest of WP:NMUSIC, if you are unable to find any sources to support it's notability then it is unlike it will pass those guidelines. If you are able to identify any new sources to support it then feel free to resubmit it when you're ready. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors

Thanks for your review,

I have improved the draft and added several external references. I would be happy to have additional suggestion if required

Thanks a lot Mickael303134 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

None of the sources are about the journal, it's only links to papers hosted on the journal itself, and these don't really help establish it's notability. WP:NJOURNAL might have some guidance on specifically what makes a journal notable. It doesn't really matter the size or "importance" of it if there are no reliable and independent sources discussing it at length, not just mentions. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sucking louse

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sucking louse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Snoteleks -- Snoteleks (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sophisticatedevening Hello, I've left a review and put your nomination on hold for the next seven days. There are still some fixes needed. Please see the comments I left. Thanks in advance! — Snoteleks (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sucking louse

The article Sucking louse you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sucking louse and Talk:Sucking louse/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Snoteleks -- Snoteleks (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sucking louse

The article Sucking louse you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sucking louse for comments about the article, and Talk:Sucking louse/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Snoteleks -- Snoteleks (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amblycera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sucking louse

Hello! Your submission of Sucking louse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amblycera

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amblycera you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello @Sophisticatedevening I have made edits to the draft:Karan Aanand regarding its expansion. The artist has played lead roles in many films and serials, and has also produced 2 films. I think it meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Please reconsider it. Neuroswasthya (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I usually do not review the same draft twice, however you are welcome to resubmit it for another reviewer to look at it. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you @Sophisticatedevening 122.177.96.230 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

abracadabra_La

Hi, I'm a new wiki writer/editor and I am not sure how to address the issues that were sent back to me. i.e. the response says that my article/submission was created by large language models (AI) and no AI was used. I am trying to get this right but I also don't know know how to address something that is just not accurate. \ HHSILVER (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The draft was deleted as an advertisement, so I am unable to look back and see specifics. However, LLMs tend to have very obvious similarities in how they write, one of which being a very promotional tone. If you would like you can ask the deleting administrator for it to be restored through WP:REFUND. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of hazing this is. But this was not advertising in any way. It was also not written by LLM's and nor was it promotional in tone or meaning. What is clear is that there are editors reading quickly and not reading carefully or helping a new editor get up to speed. The deletion of my work is an aggressive and not productive act. I spent hours on this and to say it was written by LLM's is just flat out wrong. I may not be an encylopedia writer but I know how to write and this quick dismissal of my writing is not productive. HHSILVER (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no hazing, but I am sorry you feel that the deletion is aggressive. I cannot do anything further with this, and I encourage you to heed the deleting administrator's advice and consider rewriting it again after reading through the links provided. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I had specific notes for WIKI editors in the last draft. I don't think it was even read. To ask me to re-create work that I spent hours on and to casually say re-write is not helpful or productive. Never in my wildest dreams would I think that editors who didn't even bother to contemplate what was written would trash my work. Which was considered and carefully put together. If there is a way to get it back so I can copy offline would be appreciated. This whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. I appreciate standards bu this is just not inviting or productive. I guess I thought it was more a collaborative community. But to keep hearing my work was written by an LLM when it wasn't or that it was an advertistement when it wasn't is not productive. HHSILVER (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand it can be frustrating as this is your first time writing an article and to feel like your work is being trashed, but again I cannot help you with this. You have to show the deleting administrator why it should be restored if you would like a copy of it. Again, sorry this has been so frustrating. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amblycera

The article Amblycera you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amblycera for comments about the article, and Talk:Amblycera/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

BigDeuceFOF

Thank you for moving the article to draft space. I’ve added new Google News–indexed sources and cleaned up the formatting. If it meets the notability guidelines, I’d appreciate a review when you have time. Thanks again. Bigdeucefan2 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it, it's submitted so someone should be able to take a look at it soon, cheers. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Sophisticatedevening:

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)

• 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.

AfC mailing list

Hello,

I noticed you modified the AfC mailing list, and included in that was the changing of "Newsletters" and other talk subpages to the root user talk. Why did you make this change? Many users such as myself prefer to keep these notifications separate from other talk messages.

Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Eejit43: Oh apologies, when I was creating the list petscan gave me the user pages instead of the talk ones (the talk list was very short), so I just AWB added the talk myself. Some folks had the categories on a subpage that they transcluded onto their user page, so I was manually going around and changing those to the root, and I must have missed that yours said newsletter. Super sorry about that, I've never made a mailing list before so I'm still trying to figure it out. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries! I should note that that appeared to happen to all users- there were ten usages of "Newsletters" subpages, and seems like about the same amount of other miscellaneous subpage names. These have all been changed to the root user talk page.

Do you have the bandwidth to fix these changes? If not I'm happy to help and comb through the diff. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yup I'll fix those, do you mind sharing the specific diff? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks! Here is the diff since your major revision up to the current version. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think I got all of them. Thanks for letting me know, Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Request on 13:23:04, 23 May 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by Adaniel

• Adaniel (talk · contribs)
  • Hilda Grīva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Hilda Grīva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had been a very active Wikipedian on the Hungarian Wikipedia, but in the last years I only worked with Wikidata, Commons and Wikibase. I would like to improve with data and biographies English, Hungarian, Dutch pages, and I hope that I can add many relevant new improvments and new articles. I understand that many things changed on Wikipedia since I edited the encyclopedia part, but I would really like to this well, and I would be very happy if you would review and comment on my second try of this submission.

Adaniel (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I usually do not review the same submission twice, however you are welcome to resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors: still under review

Hi,

I would like to publish the article submitted to Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, if necessary, but it has been under review for quite a long time now. Would it be possible to receive any additional feedback, if needed, so that I can make the required revisions, right now the process is blocked— or alternatively, to proceed with the publication of the article?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Mickael303134 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The process is not blocked, it is submitted for review. There is a queue of over 2900 drafts awaiting review, but it will eventually get one. I personally still don't see it meeting WP:NJOURNAL, but another person will assess that as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up on Castle of Venus Draft

Hi Sophisticatedevening,

Thanks for your time reviewing my draft article on the Draft:Castle of Venus. I’ve revised the text carefully to make the language is super-economical and matches Wikipedia's Manual of Style, avoiding anything that could seem vague, speculative, or promotional.

I also wanted to mention that I speak Italian and have reviewed Wikipedia's Italian page on the Castle (Castello di Venere), including their references. However, I've cited the English-language research I used to compile the article. I also think using the English references are better if anyone wishes to learn more. I've only included the citations of Italian news sources where no English equivalents exist.

If accepted, you might want to associate the Castle of Venus article with the Italian Castello di Venere in the language drop-down.

The revised draft is available here: Draft:Castle of Venus.

If you have any additional suggestions or concerns, let me know.

Thanks again for your feedback, Kned Wiki (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I declined your draft as it appears written almost entirely by AI. Please rewrite the draft in your own words instead. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

How to get a role: "Authenticated Users"?

Hello, @Sophisticatedevening. I'm joined on Discord server. I just follow the instructions by typing /auth and clicking link it says: "Success! Authorization sent to the bot! :)". So, what can I do now? –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 22:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it authenticated yet, I'd give it a few hours or so to make sure it's not down or anything and try /auth again. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but there was a problem. Should I revoke access and try again (2 times in a row)? –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 22:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

So, I will wait for few hours, right? –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 22:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yea I would wait for a bit, if you want you can try /deauth just in case, or DM a mod or someone who knows how the bot works. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

When I typed /deauth, WikiAuthBot2 says:

You are currently not authenticated to this server. Run this command in a server where you are authenticated.

–HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 22:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not too sure about that, I would DM a mod if you're still having issues with it. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks! –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 23:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I notice that restarted the bot and it works! :) –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 00:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Owww, thank you! ^w^ –HirowoWiki (📝) ^w^ 00:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)