User talk:DoubleGrazing

Welcome to my talk page!

Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing!

Also take care of the following points:

If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page.
Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics.
Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ":"
Sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your message.
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.
Avoid personal attacks, do not troll or use this page as a chat room.
Please, always assume good faith.
If the topic is something personal, please email me and leave {{ygm}} on my talk page.
And if you are impressed by my contributions, consider giving me some WikiLove.

⇒Start a new topic⇐

This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55

Scam warning!

There is a scam underway, targeting editors who attempt to publish Wikipedia article(s); see WP:SCAM for more information. If you have been approached by someone offering to create, accept or otherwise help publish an article in exchange for a payment, please e-mail the details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. This may help others in a similar situation to avoid becoming victims of this vile scam.
PS: If that someone claims to be me, they emphatically are not!

On draft for Maria Fasli

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. I did this on a mobile device and references there are tricky for me. I'll try to add some later on the computer.

That said, I think notability is established by means of the role (vice Chancellor), which is the highest office in a UK University (see criterion 6 for notability for academics) . I know little to none on computer science to judge her academic contributions otherwise and my only reason to create the stub was noticing WP is 2 VCs away from the current one for this university. So, if I add references to her (former) VC job, will that be enough?

Askateth (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Askateth: the article states that she is pro-VC and previously acting VC; I don't think either of those is quite the same as VC proper. And since there is very little information in this short stub, I couldn't determine notability via another aspect of WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acting VC is VC for a fixed term (in this case, and often, a full year) rather than an open term position. They're the same role and have the same responsibilities. There isn't another VC while an acting VC is in the post. Perhaps if I add the specific dates of tenure this would clear the notability issue? Otherwise when the next VC is added it will look as if there was a full year of anarchy at this university ;-) Askateth (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Askateth: yes, I did think that the acting position might just about qualify, but decided to draftify all other things considered. If you can add more sources, and generally develop the content a bit more, that would be great. BTW, on second reading of the source, it mentions that Fasli has held the "UNESCO Chair in Analytics and Data Science". If that turns out to be a named chair (in the normal meaning of the term), then that could qualify her under NACADEMIC #5. Do you know anything more about this position?

A year of anarchy at a university sounds highly appropriate to me! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So as far as I understand, a named chair is normally a position, funded externally to fund a particular person and the Chair dies when they leave. AFAI can tell from info online, UNESCO Chairs (note the list there is out of date, since at least Fasli herself is missing) are purely honorific and have no funding attached to them. That does not mean that they are not highly prestigious though, and I would think it should qualify notoriety under criterion 2. It is unclear to me if she keeps the position once she has moved to Sussex, or if she moved with it. It seems to me from Essex's website that Fasli is still partially formally associated to Essex, since they did not take her off their website, which would explain why UNESCO hasn't changed the website. In any case, for notoriety purposes, it probably does not matter, but it means I need to be a bit more careful when phrasing. Askateth (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on publicly available information I think I've added as much as I possibly can. Let me know what you think and whether it can be published. Askateth (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Askateth: okay, thanks. That UNESCO chair might be okay, but (like the acting VC-ship) it's probably a bit borderline. Meanwhile, it seems her h-index is only 22, which in a buzzy field like big data and AI/ML isn't terribly high; not a deal-breaker, but another 'borderline' factor, I'd say.

Based on all of that, I'm happy enough to move this back into the main article space, but I wouldn't want to patrol it myself, so that it at least gets another pair of eyes. How does that sound? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing I am not sure how high h-index 22 is in Computer Science and I suppose it would depend on the specific subfield within CS she is in. In maths, an h-index 22 would be pretty amazing (most Whitehead Prize awardees in recent years have half of that or less). My reason to create the article is that I think we should have continuity of VC roles for, at least, all UK pre-92 universities and in this case I felt confident enough to create a stub without too much effort (and, generally, I am OK with some articles being a forever stub). So I was writing it based on her leadership, not her scientific contributions, which is why I added the most relevant bit of her tenure (the unprecedented redundancies). For the same reason, I would like to see her successor also listed but I don't feel confident enough to create her stub. Perhaps once she's been in the role for long enough to have a couple of articles mentioning her in the news I can give it a try.

As for patrolling, sure. Happy to add her to my watchlist once you move it to the main space.

Thanks for the help and constructive criticism! Askateth (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Askateth: I moved it back into the main article space. Because I'm autopatrolled, that means it gets patrolled automatically, and I didn't then want to unpatrol it because that sometimes causes problems with search engine indexing etc. So I'll leave it like that, and if someone takes issue with this, they can come and slap my wrist if they wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it's an obvious lie

I just proceed to speedy tags. Thanks for the trust. BusterD (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, this one is testing the limits of my trust, and it was never my strong suit to begin with. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Legal post for administrator attention

Hi recently active admin,

Just wanted to notify someone about a recent WP:legal threat posted at WP:BLPN.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#c-FinnDirector-20250915224100-Amanda Eliasch

This content, added without her approval, misrepresents her apolitical identity and causes reputational harm. Legal action is being pursued against those responsible. Wikipedia must remove this section to prevent further defamation and ensure no similar content is reinstated. Thank you for your immediate action.
— — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnDirector (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Blepbob (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Blepbob. The user is already blocked for edit warring, but I will post on their talk to clarify the legal threat issue (it isn't entirely clear whether "those responsible" refers to whoever hacked Eliasch's blog, or the Wikipedia editor(s) who added the offending passage to her article). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 70

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

New collections:
- Times of Malta
- Africa Intelligence
- Intelligence Online
- La Lettre
- Glitz
Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:DoubleGrazing and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Similarity with Arshifakhan61

Looking at Niharika Chouksey's deletion record, I am reminded of this banned sock master. The edits by YAKSH75 have made me think of it. Yet I have no concrete evidence yet to support an SPI. It woudl be a fishing expedition, which is deprecated, quite rightly. I have, however, given them the start of a Paid series of warnings. This also appears to be a CIR editor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timtrent: I agree, there is something not quite right with that one. I spent a fair bit of time earlier trying to dig into it, but couldn't find anything concrete, so far at least, although I didn't try particularly to match it with Arshifakhan61. All the socks in the Arshifakhan61 drawer are long since stale, the last confirmed CU match was over a year ago, so it would need solid enough behavioural evidence to justify a block. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on all counts. The paid warning route may be a solution. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drex Lee COI

I was told to repost the article but the COI template is still there do I have permission to remove it? The original accuser Onel5969 said "Okay then, simply move it back. Makes sense." After I explained that it was not COI. Im sorry, I take wikipedia very seriously. Tzim78 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzim78: looks like it's been moved already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drex Lee

I am being treated unfairly.

CoolEditer25 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Image in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have carefully checked the references again. The current citations include published works (e.g., Mufti Muhammad Shafi’s *Ma'ariful Qur'an*), official fatwa institutions such as Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah, and scholarly resources (e.g., Ibn Baz’s rulings). These are considered reliable and verifiable within the context of Islamic jurisprudence.

At present, these are the strongest available sources on the subject. If you are aware of additional high-quality academic or secondary sources, I would be glad to review and add them. However, the article is already based on the most authoritative references accessible for this topic. CoolEditer25 (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polite request

Hello, I created the article Joannie Bewa that was recently deleted. Could I please get a copy of the content in my user sandbox for future revision?

Appreciate it. Joannie Bewa (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joannie Bewa: sorry, but I won't do that. Your draft was totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. We are not like LinkedIn etc., where you can write your own 'profile' to tell the world about yourself, and say pretty much whatever you want; here that is considered pure promotion. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects with encyclopaedic value and which are considered notable. While writing about yourself is not strictly speaking forbidden, it is very strongly discouraged. It may be that if you are genuinely notable, someone will one day write an article about you, but that someone should ideally not be you or anyone associated with you.

Another thing: Wikipedia articles are composed by summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously published, and citing those sources against the information they have provided. Your draft was completely unreferenced, except for the single citation to the TechChange article about your award, and therefore it self-evidently wasn't based on any published sources at all. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, with basically every material statement, as well as anything potentially contentious and all private personal details needing to be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Even if you know, say, your date of birth (which I hope you do!), you cannot include it in the article unless it has been previously published in a reliable source.

For these reasons, your draft content is unusable, even with heavy editing; it would need to be completely rewritten. The best I can do is, I can restore it to your sandbox for a brief time, so that you can copy the contents into a local file (such as Word document) on your system, for use outside of Wikipedia, but I will then have to re-delete it. If you want me to do this, let me know, and then also let me know once you have captured the content so I can delete it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting guidance on acceptable sources and improvement tips for a regional college article

@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your response, DoubleGrazing. I appreciate your explanation about reliable and independent sources. I am reviewing my draft and searching for better quality, in-depth references from independent and secondary sources, as you outlined. If you could, suggest what kind of sources would be specifically acceptable for a regional engineering college like mine? Would coverage in major newspapers, education-related magazines, or government accreditation reports be enough if they contain clear, in-depth discussion about the institution, not just listings? Also, if there are common mistakes people make with sources for college articles, could you share what to avoid? If you know of examples of accepted articles in similar institutions that got it right, a pointer would be extremely helpful. Thank you again for your guidance. I want to make sure my next submission meets Wikipedia’s standards, and your advice will be invaluable. Charan023 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Charan023: yes, major newspapers and magazines, and print and broadcast media more generally, can be good sources. I say "can be", because it depends on what sort of content it is, and who produced it. A lot of media outlets publish articles based on interviews, press releases, etc., which are primary sources (they are the subject talking) and therefore not independent. In online outlets, where 'print costs' are nil or negligible, and also in trade publications, which have low news thresholds for events in their sector, there are also a lot of routine business news being reported, such as appointments, financial results, minor awards, etc., which are not significant coverage of the subject, and are also usually based on press releases.

We want to see multiple secondary sources that have provided, on their own initiative, significant coverage of the subject, without any inducement or prompting by the subject. In other words, some journalist or news producer etc. basically must have said "this organisation is doing some really interesting things, let me research it and write an article about why their work is important". Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for your detailed guidance on independent and secondary sources. Following your advice, I have recently added several citations to my draft, including:

Anna University affiliation: https://www.annauniv.edu/cai/District%20wise/district/Chennai.php

AICTE approval: https://www.aicte.gov.in/downloads/approved_institut_websites/tn.pdf

AICTE approval letter: https://mce.edu.in/uploads/certificate/aicte/letter-of-approval.pdf

IRINS research repository: https://mce.irins.org/

TNLEA counseling code listing: https://www.tnlea.com/QuickLinks/LEA-2025/listofcollegs.pdf

Daily Thanthi student admissions coverage: https://www.dailythanthi.com/news/tamilnadu/welcome-to-first-year-students-at-meenakshi-engineering-college-1177199

The Times of India on public engagement: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/over-4-lakh-people-take-voting-pledge-set-world-record/articleshow/108907930.cms

May I please ask whether these sources move my article closer to the required standard for in-depth, independent coverage? If not, could you suggest what type or examples of press, magazine, or academic coverage would be considered significant enough for acceptance? Any further tips would help greatly.

Thank you again for your time and support!

Charan023 Charan023 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Charan023: no, the first five are primary sources, and the last two don't provide significant coverage of the institution. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for clarifying, I now understand that most of my existing sources are either primary or do not count as significant independent coverage.

Would you be able to suggest strategies or specific places to look for acceptable secondary sources? For example, would education-focused news platforms, feature stories in The Hindu, The Times of India, or major Indian education magazines be suitable if they provide in-depth reporting about the college’s achievements or history?

If you know of any reference databases, archives, or ways to identify in-depth journalistic coverage about regional colleges, your guidance would be very helpful. Any tips or links on how other successful articles have found such sources would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for your advice and support!

Charan023 Charan023 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What can i do to get the page published?

What can i do to get the page published? This is our 2nd attempt. Azim Premji Foundation is one of the biggest Not for profit organization in India, with reorganization from various global forums, it deserves to have a Wikipedia page. Azim Premji, founder of the foundation has a page. Azim Premji University, one of the wings of the foundation has a page, so I think there is no reason to decline Azim Premji Foundation page repeatedly. Please look into this and help in get published. TIA Sambitapf2024 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambitapf2024: what you have to do is to demonstrate that this organisation is notable according to the WP:ORG guidelines. Your draft currently does not do that. Just because there exists a Wikipedia article on some other, related subject, has no bearing on this; each subject has to demonstrate notability in its own right, as notability is not inherited by association.

Another thing you have to do is to read and respond to the conflict of interest (COI) query I posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, will work on this and resubmit.

Already replied on talk Sambitapf2024 (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended auto confirmed user rights revoked

Don’t need to make up anything. You can do anything you want on that sandbox. I just so happened to edit it 200 times. Astrawiki3203 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Thcsphuninh2025

This user is an LTA, can you revoke their TPA? I've reported them to SRG for locking. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydoh8: yeah, done that.

Please don't get into edit wars with vandals, it's not worth it. On a bad day, might even get you blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Reconsideration of Account Block and Article Deletion

Hello @DoubleGrazing,

I noticed that my account was blocked and my draft "SIP Academy India" was deleted, citing promotion and repetition. I understand that previous versions may have contained issues with promotional tone or insufficient independent sourcing, and I apologize for that.

I have since learned more about Wikipedia’s policies and have rewritten my draft to strictly follow the guidelines for notability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. The new version cites only independent, major news articles (not company websites) such as The Hindu and The Times of India, clearly establishing significance and complying with neutral point of view.

I did not intend to violate any rules, and my motivation was to create an informative entry supported by independent sources. If any of my actions seemed to evade policy, it was not deliberate, and I am committed to fully respecting Wikipedia’s standards.

I kindly request that my account block be reviewed and reconsidered, and I am open to further guidance or mentorship from experienced editors. My intention is to contribute constructively, not to promote or disrupt.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Vikram023 136.185.17.142 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deal with block-evading sockpuppets. If you wish to appeal your block, do so on your talk page, which you can still edit. Do not go around making edits under IP; you personally are blocked, not just your registered account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article marked as "made with AI"

Hi @DoubleGrazing! You left a note on my draft "Maestro college", saying it was created with chatGPT. It's important to note I created the entire article myself, and only used ChatGPT to make the citations adaptable to Wikipedia, is this also prohibited? Sharonb1994 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharonb1994: my advice would be not to use AI at all; it doesn't know what it's doing, and is causing more problems than it's solving. Case in point: your citations were completely useless, because they didn't actually cite any sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thank you! I'll recreate it and submit for review again. Sharonb1994 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind request for copy

Hello, I created the page "Joannie Bewa" that was recently deleted. Could I please get a copy of the content restored to my user sandbox for revision? I would like to work on improving it to meet Wikipedia guidelines. I will appreciate your feedback. Thank you. Joannie Bewa (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joannie Bewa: as I said last week, I'm prepared to restore this for a brief time, on the understanding that you capture the content to a local file, and let me know once that's done so that I can delete it again. Please do not attempt to submit this for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is now available at User:Joannie Bewa/sandbox. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Joannie Bewa (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352
Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.

Online events:

New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween
Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music

Announcements:

Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do

Tip of the Month:

Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.

Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever.
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:

19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project.
Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

User:Forrestnolan/sandbox

Okay. I was trying to figure out what that was, to determine how I should decline or reject it, and then I saw that, whatever it had been, it wasn't anything any more. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: yeah, it was a weird one. Luckily the author included a link to the Amazon page where the content was copied from. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted for unambiguous copyright infringement

Hi,

I'm not sure what my next steps should be, but Wikipedia said I needed to contact DoubleGrazing if I want to recreate a page similar to the one previously deleted. I would like to recreate the page I wrote about The Reporters Inc. to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. When I was originally creating the page, I was totally unaware I was violating copyright law. I thought by attributing any text I copied from the website that I would avoid any issues, especially for the organization's mission statement and documentary summaries.

I already have the content saved on a local file, so I don't need it to be restored. I just would like to the opportunity to fix my mistakes.

Thank you Viaannrad (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Viaannrad: you're not allowed to copypaste or even closely paraphrase third-party content, unless it is demonstrably out of copyright or licensed under terms compatible with Wikipedia (meaning, Creative Commons licence or similar). The source which the contents of your sandbox draft were taken from, TheReporters.org website, clearly claims copyright. Please do not attempt to recreate the draft with the same content.

In any case, we have no interest in what a subject has to say about itself, so in that sense taking content like this from the subject's website is completely pointless. We want to see what others, specifically reliable and independent secondary sources, have said about the subject and what in their view makes it worthy of note. Thus, the need shouldn't really arise to copy content from their website in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]