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.

Proper AfC Draft:Eric_Gilbertson_(climber)

Hey @Cabrils,

It's been a while. Figured I'd give you a ping about this.

I've since learned my lesson on how not to edit on Wikipedia, especially with the COI. It's been about a month since the article was deleted, but I saved a copy of the Eric Gilbertson article in my userspace prior to its deletion. I recently submitted a reworked draft of the article to AfC, having done my best to reduce fluff and self-published sources (i.e: the table is gone, information only verifiable through his blog is gone, and the blog is only referenced once which can be removed if needed). Also, ExplorersWeb, an unreliable source, has been entirely removed from the draft.

Many of the sources are independent of him (i.e: Nat Geo Poland, The Times of London, BBC, and Sueddeutsche Zeitung). Other sources, such as "The Line" on the American Alpine Club journal appear to have taken excerpts from Eric's writing but have been written by someone else. See WikiProject Climbing's climber notability.

Given his coverage between the Rainier survey and sources mentioned above (among others) do you still think he's WP:TOOSOON? Taking in the suggestions of the AfD discussion, not all coverage on him appears to be purely interviews.

Given my COI, I will not be the one to move the article to the mainspace should it be accepted by reviewers. If it is moved to the mainspace, I will also refrain from doing direct edits and would only suggest them through the talk page.

If you get a chance and are willing, I'm happy to hear feedback. I have learned my lesson and will not do any disruptive edits. I know last time I did things the wrong way, but want to do things right this time around.

Cheers and thank you for your time! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

That sounds like good progress and appreciate your willingness to learn.

I will have a look and come back to you (likely in the next week or so). Cabrils (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cabrils! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowledgeIsPower9281,

I've had a look at the current (revised) draft and I'm happy we keep developing this to see if we can get it across the line.

The draft is looking much more palatable, so I think it's now in a position to wrestle with the actual requirements. To do so:

1. 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.

2. 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").

Also, it would be good to move our discussion to the draft's talk page, for greater visibility for all reviewers, so moving forward let's communicate there.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Cabrils! Doing WP:THREE and the page's met criteria now. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowledgeIsPower9281,

Apologies for such a tardy reply.

I think the revised draft looks good, and have commented on it, seeking the opinion of DJ Cane who nominated the previous version of the page for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber)). Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion provided. Thanks for the ping. I'm happy to collaborate with this project further if needed and/or desired. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DJ Cane and @Cabrils! We'll keep working on this draft to get it ready for the mainspace and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included! I guess the best place to collaborate would be the draft talk page? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Yes, the Talk page of the draft is the best place. Cabrils (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cabrils and @DJ Cane, just created the topic thread on the draft talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stover_School,_Devon

Hi,

I've made the necessary edits, plus a few more. Are you able to approve it, please?

Thank you! Spangles123 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping.

As I requested in my comment on the draft:

1. 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).

2. 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:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Further, the insubstantial changes you have made since the draft was rejected on 3 November by @Theroadislong, are not sufficient to overcome the issues previously identified. Cabrils (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't have a connection to the subject. Is there a way that I can declare this?
I've added in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent sources. The article about the school in Devon Life magazine (source 14), the BBC coverage of an event held by the School (source 15), coverage of the schools activities and exam results in the press (sources 9, 11, 12 and 13) and a recent mention of the school in The Times (source 2) means that the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3. The school inspection report (source 1) is an extremely in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent source and I have quoted from that extensively. The school has a few notable alumni, including one of the founders of the CND. Is there anything else that I should add.
Theroadislong might not have been very happy because I told them that having to use direct quotes from the school inspection report instead of paraphrasing was bad writing. Despite this, I did add the quotes, as they requested.

All the other schools in the area have a Wiki page, but they don't meet all of these requirements. See King Edward VI College, South Dartmoor Community College, and Teign School. I don't understand why I'm having to jump through so many hoops, when others haven't been forced to. Spangles123 (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Firstly, I encourage you to [create a Userpage], which will make communicating much more efficient.

Once you have done that, on the draft's Talk Page (not here on this page), as I have previously requested, please:

1. Start a discussion and declare that you do not have any connection to the subject, if that is in fact true (which seems a little doubtful given the nature of the page you are creating). For clarity: there is not necessarily a problem with having a conflict of interest (for example, you work at the school, or are a student or parent, or are being paid), but you must declare that on your Talk page.

2. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page (not here on my page), the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

3. 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:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Doing these things will progress the assessment process.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)\|}[reply]

Draft:Neshe

You previously mentioned on a draft that you would reassess it when resubmitted. Draft:Neshe has been resubmitted. If you do not with to review it again, let me know and I will. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my belated reply. I see the page has already been accepted. Well done, all the best. Cabrils (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Morrison (artist)

Hello, I am in the process of editing the article on Robert Morrison, but I wanted to point to the Draft_talk:Robert_Morrison_(artist) for my responses to the concerns you raised after reading the article. Thank you! "HardyBoy3 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)"[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

Thanks for your helpful comments on the Talk page of the draft.

Could you please address, as requested in my comment on the draft (see my instructions there for how to correctly do this), whether you have a conflict of interest? I think by inference from your remarks that you don't, but some express clarification would accelerate the process. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the quick response! I have added a COI notice on the talk page of the draft. Not sure if this is what you are asking for. I've also added a COI/advocacy statement onto my user talk page. Let me know your thoughts when you can. HardyBoy3 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that.

I've reread the draft and I think it looks good now and meets the requirements. Please feel free to submit it and ping me and I would be happy to accept it. Cabrils (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with all this. I have resubmitted. HardyBoy3 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article accepted. Well done, appreciate your willingness to take on feedback and collaborate. Cabrils (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in fine turning the details. HardyBoy3 (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gabriele_Scheler

Could you say what is wrong with it now? 79.250.56.138 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft still fails to address all of the issues raised in my original comment. Cabrils (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hereditary Witch

Hello, Cabrils,

You tagged this draft article several hours too early for a CSD G13 so I had to untag it and we need to wait another 6 months before it is eligible again for G13 speedy deletion. We work from a bot-created list that knows exactly when drafts are eligible for CSD G13 so please do not tag drafts and sandboxes prematurely or it just delays their deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry!! I'm on Australian time zone, so thought it was 6 months and 1 day. My mistake, thanks for explaining. Cabrils (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ping_Post

Thanks Cabrils for the detailed feedback on the Ping Post Article, it is much appreciated . I went through and made some changes, figured out where the talk page was (I has missed this before) and added a disclosure about my connection to industry as well as three notable sources to help speed up the vetting. I also make edits to the page in line with your comments. I would like to resubmit if this has gotten the article up to WP guidelines. Kingnap (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the ping.

In short, the page is still a fair way from meeting the relevant criteria, including WP:GNG.

Please take some time to peruse my Comment, and the many links I included therein, especially ‘Your First Article’. You need to address all those issues I raise. All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrils, I did go through your comments and the issues raised, the articles cover many subtopics so I want to make sure I am hitting the most relevant issues. It seems like the notable point seems to be a major sticking point. I am fairly new at creating wikipedia articles but it would be very helpful if you could give me a little more guidance on what in your opinion would show the article is notable. If you don't think there is really anything that will bring this topic to that level that would also be good feedback so I can reevaluate if Wikipedia is really the best place for me to start my journey writing about marketing topics. Thank you and best regards KN Kingnap (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a fundamental principle here.

I can't really speak to the topic per se, but presently, frankly, the article feels like a promotional piece you have been paid to write as a marketing or advertising vehicle to promote the businesses included. Whether or not that is true, that is the impression I have. None of the links included to standardinformion.com, federal trade commission, patents.justia.com etc contribute towards notability, and most of them should be removed as being unreliable sources (as defined), creating significant problems for the article insofar as meeting the relevant criteria.

I can say that Wikipedia is certainly not "the best place for [you] to start [your] journey writing about marketing topics". Cabrils (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and thanks for the candid feedback. A bit disappointing to hear but better to get the feedback upfront before investing more time into something that is not going to be helpful. Hopefully someone else will pick up the topic eventually. Kingnap (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Cameron Stewart (journalist)

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

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

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