User talk:MaxnaCarta/Archive 1

Done, Thank you PravinGanechari (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaxnaCarta!

Thank you for reviewing my article Draft:Doft. As per the your question, please find attached a source assessment table in which I have added different sources covering the company. Hopefully, this information will help you. I still believe that the rejection can be undone and the article can be accepted, considering the information provided. Thank you, brother, and have a nice day (it's evening though for me in Los Angeles now)!

Source Assessment Table

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?
https://startupbeat.com/6-break-out-apps-disrupting-the-trucking-industry/25515/ *	Y (two paragraphs about the subject, and the first in the list)	Y	Y	Y
https://startupbeat.com/startupbeats-20-under-50-female-leaders-in-tech/33974/ *	N	Y	Y	Y
https://www.truckinginfo.com/157475/how-disruptive-will-uber-freight-be-for-trucking	Y (a whole section with multiple paragraph covering the subject)	Y	Y	Y (a narrative piece that includes—but is not limited to—a couple of quote from the co-founder)
https://handyshippingguide.com/shipping-news/uber-for-us-freight-trucking-new-app-service-goes-country-wide_7822	Y	Y	N	Y
https://www.ajot.com/news/freight-shipping-legend-pat-hull-joins-startup-doft-as-an-advisor	Y	Y	Y	Y
https://www.the-blockchain.com/2017/09/21/disruptive-truck-sharing-company-doft-sells-doftcoins-to-truckers-3pls-and-freight-shippers-with-50-discount-during-pre-ico-doft-announces-50m-ico-to-its-user-community-in-its-strive-to-innovate-th/ **	Y	Y	Y	Y
https://www.fleetowner.com/technology/article/21696235/doft-partners-with-vhi-transport *	Y	Y	Y	Y
https://www.fleetowner.com/technology/article/21696383/doft-integrates-with-posteverywhere-to-simplify-freight-posting *	Y	Y	Y	Y

Notes:
*: I recognize that two pieces from the same publisher are considered one source.
**: I recognize that blockchain journals and crypto-tailored media outlets are not considered reliable for establishing the notability for coins. I included it as part of establishing the notability of the company and not the coin.

Df28-2022 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

NB: Discussion continued on draft talk page. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi MaxnaCarta! I recently noticed that you created a redirect in place of the HCA Florida Kendall Hospital article I created with a summary stating: "Redirecting as new page reviewer, article does not meet notability standards for stand alone article per NCORP/ORG." While I do feel like the article likely meets the definition of NCORP/ORG, the standard I usually reference for notability of hospital articles is the Wikiproject Hospital standard (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials). This standard for the notability of hospitals states, in part, the following: "Articles about hospitals, clinics, and related organizations must comply with the WP:ORG notability standard, which requires, as an absolute minimum: that the hospital has been noticed by two unrelated, independent third-party sources that at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth (many paragraphs directly about the hospital) that at least one source that is outside of the organization's local/service area, including state or national recognition as a trauma center or medical specialty center. In practice, large, regional hospitals will almost always meet all of these standards, particularly those designated as Level I trauma centers. Verification or designation as a trauma center of any level is sufficient to represent a source that is outside the organization's local area." The article has been noted by more than two unrelated, independent-third party sources (including Miami's Community News, Florida International University, the Florida Committee on Trauma, Florida Department of Health, and the American College of Surgeons (ACS).). The article references one source (Miami's Community News) that has two in-depth articles about this hospital) and it is recognized by the state of Florida as a burn center and by the state and ACS as a Level I trauma center. As a 447-bed Level I trauma center, I also feel this hospital meets the above description of notable by being a "large, regional hospital" that is "designated as (a) Level I trauma center." If you would prefer, I could add more references from unrelated, independent sources. I have not yet reverted your last edit of creating the redirect because I wanted to discuss with you first. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaxnaCarta, please let me know if you have any objection to me restoring the HCA Florida Kendall Hospital article. If I don't hear anything, I'll go ahead and restore, but I wanted to check with you first. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner- if you feel it meets notability you have the right as an editor to undo the redirect as much as I had to create it. Thanks for reaching out and appreciate your patience. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @MaxnaCarta,

Few weeks ago, I asked for a review on the draft page that I've been working on and you concluded that the page was not suitable for Wikipedia, and it was a fair judgement from you in my opinion.

It was my first time working on an article and did not fully understand the ins and outs of creating a Wikipedia page at the time.

However, I've made few changes to the draft since then and wanted to know if you could point out some of the things that I should work on to post the page? ( Draft:Veiled Experts )

Thank you! Hyccc20 (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hyccc20.

Please provide me with a source assessment table demonstrating significant coverage in appropriate sources. Please place onto the draft's talk page and then ping me here when done so I can assess. I would like an explanation as to why you decided to move the draft through to mainspace without seeking advice. You were advised to go through the AFC process after attempting to move the article through on your own. I please also seek explanation as to why your edit history of 39 contributions appears solely dedicated to getting this article draft created and moved to Wikipedia mainspace. I please seek an explanation on how you immediately had the skill to draft a formatted article, and knew which areas to request assistance at.

My concerns are:

1. That you have consistently tried to find ways to push the article through regardless of feedback

2. That you may possibly have an undisclosed conflict of interest and/or are a paid editor that has failed to disclose this

Of course, I have suspicions rather than evidence and so I assume good faith but please seek an answer to my concerns.

Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, these are valid assumptions based on how I have tried to push the draft page over to the main page. I will find time sometime next week to work on providing you with the assessment table and ping you once it is ready for a review! However, the reason why I tried to push the draft to main page is because I just wanted to show my friends that there is a Wikipedia page for the game that we have played during the beta. Nothing less and nothing more than that whether you can believe me on it or not :/ And the reason I kept asking for a review was because I didn't genuinely understand why it was being rejected for. I guess that is on me for not reading the page more carefully, but it's my first draft on Wikipedia, so I naturally got frustrated with a lack of knowledge on the process here.

I just want you to know that I am willing to put in the work to make the page up to the standard on Wikipedia, however long it takes. Thank you for taking time to give me feedback on this!

I will ping you here again once I complete some of the tasks you have asked me to do for the draft page :) Have a nice day! Hyccc20 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I would not work on the article before showing me sources @Hyccc20. Demonstrate significant coverage in two reliable sources and I can help you clean the article up and get it moved to main. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are close to Wikipedia kryptonite - they kill most (not all) discussions about whether a topic belongs here. Show me sources, the article is likely appropriate. Also, I assume nothing - my points are concerns, not conclusions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaxnaCarta.

I've found a few sources about the game I was drafting. Although I tried to look for sources in English, I couldn't find anything reliable. However, I was able to fish out some solid game review pieces from Korean presses. They seem like a proper review of the game rather than a vanity piece like the English ones, and hopefully, they are suitable to be used as sources for this article. Please let me know what you think of these sources! Thank you.

Review of VEILED EXPERTS on the Gametoc section of Hankyung News before Nexon Games began the beta test on Steam: https://gametoc.hankyung.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=66470

Review of VEILED EXPERTS from Kuki News during the beta test on Steam: https://www.kukinews.com/newsView/kuk202206170107

Review of VEILED EXPERTS' alpha test from Game Meca, a Korean game review site: https://www.gamemeca.com/view.php?gid=1671811 Hyccc20 (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Victorian Human Rights Commission.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Scott Woodward is a globally recognized branding executive and with clear media coverage on the internet. He has been at the forefront of some well-known marketing campaigns for noteworthy brands/companies. There might be some issues with the draft so it shouldn't be deleted but moved to the draft section where i can along with other editors work to improve it. I believe this decision is too abrupt and needs to be reconsidered.

AIstruckbob (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @

The Wikipedia Adventure course and learn more about what kinds of articles the project accepts before attempting to write another, otherwise the same outcomes are likely to eventuate. MaxnaCarta (talk

) 23:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Adding a reminder for those involved - I really dislike alerts, so I am doing it this way so that all of you, MaxnaCarta, our new editor
  WP:ARBGENDER. Here is the 2022 log you might want to review. Happy editing to all of you! Atsme 💬 📧
  18:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I was also in the process of reviewing that article as it popped up on my watchlist. Aside from a slight section which I re-worded to avoid a copyvio, and adding the same {{notability}} template, I was about to flag it as reviewed per the NPP flowchart. I saw that you've not marked it as reviewed yet, and was wondering if you had any other concerns about it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I thought notability was borderline. Normally this would mean the article is draftified - but I felt like exercising discretion and leaving feedback, allowing another editor to review for second opinion. If you feel it's okay, that's fine with a tag. It is very unlikely to survive an AFD discussion so moving to main should be okay. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm. If you're only applying

WP:NORG. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 23:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme was my tutor for NPP School. I am just looping her in here, not for her to make a ruling on this article (I am perfectly happy for you as a reviewer to accept it) but rather if Atsme: please can you clarify - I believe that GNG does not apply to companies/organisations - they must meet NCORP/NORG, right? We intentionally have a stricter criteria for organisations/companies to prevent low notability entities slipping in. Either way Sideswipe - this is why I did not mark the article as reviewed. Per NPP rules, if in doubt, leave for another editor which is what I did. You can certainly exercise your right to review however!

(Atsme, for context I saw this article, did not review, but left a note for the author on their TP that more sources may be needed and left it at that. All well and good, no-one here is angry! Just genuinely confused whether NORG or GNG applies) :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it passes

WP:NOTADVOCACY because as it currently sits, the article is non-compliant with NPOV. Another thought...when you get into material about health issues, you are also getting into WP:MEDRS requirement. Atsme 💬 📧

00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Though this is perhaps a discussion for the article's talk page, I don't see how this fails NOTADVOCACY. While the organisation is unquestionably an advocacy organisation, NOTADVOCACY does not prevent us from having articles on advocacy organisations should they prove notable, and indeed we have a great many other articles on advocacy organisations across the political and sociological spectrum. Via a pretty thorough reading of the sources used, this does seem to report objectively on what those sources say. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the New York Times section and then read the actual New York Times article. Do you see any mention in that article about Health Liberation Now or it's founders? Look at the cited sources – they cited themselves and the Texas Observer because they are upset they were not published. Wow – speaks volumes to their notability, does it not? NPOV is an issue for certain – advocacy articles typically are non-compliant with NPOV – it is rare when they are not. 🚩 If you cannot see the NPOV issue, then perhaps you should take it to NPOVN and get more input. In the interim tag it with a NPOV tag and group a few more tags with it for (a) having a lead that's too short, (b) more RS, and (c) MOS issues. Draftify might be the best choice. Atsme 💬 📧 00:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme thanks! For future, if an article falls under SNG, such as an organisation falling under NCORP - it must meet the more stringent criteria under that SNG, am I correct? If an org/corp fails NORG/NCORP, this means the lower notability standard of GNG doesn't apply, is that right? MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait what? Are you accusing TheTranarchist of being one of being either Ky Schevers or Lee Leveille? Because aside from some minor copy-edits by myself to avoid a copy-vio and to add a wikilink, and MaxnaCarta adding the notability tag, they are the only editor to have edited that article.

Otherwise, I cannot follow the logic. Bazelon's NYTimes piece attracted a

coatrack

issues.

However we have strayed pretty far from the original question, was just restated by MaxnaCarta. So if we could focus on that, and perhaps you and I could continue the side discussion either on the article talk page, my or your talk page, or NPOVN? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I was talking about what they did here about the NYTimes author "During this email exchange Bazelon referenced Leveille’s report When Ex-Trans Worlds Collide". Hmmm, I did not notice the article creator's name until you just brought it up. That user name suggests a potential COI with these types of articles which may explain the NPOV issue. As reviewers, those are questions that we may need to ask the article creator in a very polite and helpful manner because it is important to AGF. Atsme 💬 📧 01:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RS

for reports on attacks on transgender rights, which covered how every source described them and links to them.

I included a reference to the letter in the article because it was mentioned in the Texas Observer, and as Sideswipe9th stated, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the article and who it considered acceptable to speak on trans topics. I used two independent sources to describe their motivations for founding trying to take care to use the language in the sources (demarcating what was attributed as quotes and what was stated in the article's voice as fact). In the Activities section, apart from the NYT controversy, I similarly followed that policy and described 1) their reporting of anti-trans clinic protests 2) their "New Era" report 3) their mapping project and 4) their reports of cross-over between gender critical groups and the far right which were all covered in the Xtra Magazine piece.

Also, if being transgender means there's a conflict of interest in writing articles relating to transgender topics I'd love to hear more about that... Frankly, I've heard it before, usually as a gotcha to sidestep actual WP:POLICY or sources I've raised (not saying you're doing that, it just happens and gets old), and my editing speaks for itself: I cover transgender topics often and thoroughly. Also, to clarify, I am indeed neither Ky Schevers or Lee Leveille, though I have the utmost respect for the work they do. I've been planning to create this article for a while, I left a redlink to them in the article on Genspect.

In terms of notability, MaxnaCarta left a message on my

WP:TOSOON

, that's an essay that says nothing about organizations and fails to cover how relatively recently formed groups can have extensive coverage while groups formed a while ago can have little. It only says If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered, pointing out sources may not exist for a recently formed organization as opposed to saying they're invalid.

Regardless, I'm about to take another look at the page and try and improve it best I can, extending the lead (though it feels it succinctly covers the group), trying to dredge up more sources, and fixing some typos I spotted.

talk

) 02:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Maxna, if it is not a clearly notable organization that has been around for a while, and can easily pass GNG, and SNG, they fail (and this one was just created last year which is another 🚩 WP:TOOSOON). A year is barely enough time to be an organization, much less SIGCOV. Atsme 💬 📧 01:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks @

TheTranarchist please see. I really feel you should draftify. This was my first gut feeling. However I did not, because I when in doubt I leave for another reviewer per NPP guidelines. MaxnaCarta (talk

) 01:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's all good! And it's definitely a good question to find out the answer. My understanding is that either GNG or a specific

primary critera, or GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 00:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV

because of the use of quotes. If you want to improve the article, contract rather than expand.

@Sideswipe9th: that is really confusing. The 'primary criteria' are just the strict interpretation of GNG, so it does not make sense to state that people can choose between GNG or the primary criteria. I don't know the background of that text, but please apply the primary NCORP criteria.

As for notability. In its current state, there seem to be two articles that may contribute some to GNG/NCORP (1) Xtra (full length, but unfamiliar with reliability of the source) and (2) Texas observer, which dedicates 60 words to the organisation, on the low side for GNG (Wikipedia:One hundred words). Those together do not satisfy GNG, nevermind NCORP. The Independent source is not independent, as it consist mostly of quotes by Leveille. With the concerns about neutrality added, draftification is likely the best option.

I'm mulling over the best way forward here. NPP is often the last opportunity we have to teach new editors how Wikipedia works, and to ensure mainspace doesn't have article that are not ready for it. So this review concerns me. I'll look over the rest of your patrols later tonight, and may have to revoke the user right if I spot more problems. In the meantime, please do not patrol borderline articles yet, and leave that to more experienced reviewers. A good way to learn is to watchlist them, write down what you would have done, and revisit when somebody has reviewed. Femke (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Femke: So that I don't cause you any more work than is necessary, I'll hold off on all patrols for now so that I don't add to the workload. If there's any that you wish to discuss, to understand my thinking/rationales I'm of course happy to do so. I'd prefer if we could hold that discussion (if necessary) over on my or your talk page please, just so that we're not filling MaxnaCarta's notifications.

I will of course also take onboard what you and others have said here with regards to NCORP and GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: @Sideswipe9th: @Femke: @MaxnaCarta: Just passing by after noticing the RSN discussion and the AfD. There is an AfD about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Liberation Now! started by Red-tailed hawk. If you could discuss whether the article is notable at that venue it would be great! VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Purpleicecream27! (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Decentralized Pictures Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, hoping you can help shed light on why our submission got denied. DCP has had significant coverage in outlets such as Indiewire, Rolling Stone, Variety and even the Washington Post. Not sure I understand what other kind of coverage is required to get accepted. Can you please let me know?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Purpleicecream27!#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Decentralized_Pictures_Foundation_%28September_12%29

Purpleicecream27! (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Purpleicecream27!I left all the reasons for its decline on the page. You have seven edits all focused on creating one article. Your declared conflict of interest is appreciated, but the COI is likely affecting your judgement on notability and neutrality. That said, if the company met notability standards and the article was written in a neutral tone and not like an advertisement, I'd have approved the article. It has not been covered significantly. I've provided you the assistance required by pointing you to the correct policies. Feedback was provided in detail on the draft. This article subject is insufficiently notable and if you submit the article again it will almost certainly be rejected. Please be advised my decision is final. Unless you provide evidence of significant coverage according to Wikipedia's interpretation, not your own, I cannot assist you further. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Appreciate the prompt response and the feedback. We spoke to someone on the chat section and they advised to remove the NFT mention because of promotions on wikipedia regarding, they also said that the Washington Post article shows notability from a neutral stand point, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/14/film-crypto-decentralized-coppola/

The organization is founded by Roman Coppola, who has his own Wikipedia page. Is there an opportunity to add DCP under his page based on this?

We will review the submission based on the feedback we received through here and through the chat. Purpleicecream27! (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Purpleicecream27! If you feel there is appropriate content to add then you can, but unless it is appropriate and neutral, others may revert. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

Actioned MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melbourne Law School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hearn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The page

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

Hello, MaxnaCarta,

When you draftify a page, please tag the orginal main space page CSD R2. This is done easily if you use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion or use one of the Draftify scripts, like User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. Also, why did you move this page to Wikipedia/Project space? You should know that this is not the right namespace for articles or drafts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz I’m lost. It was created in main by mistake, only one sentence. I quickly moved it to draft, finished the draft, and then moved it to main. I understand it’s not complete, but it’s as full as I can make it at present and appropriate quality for main now. Please can I move it back to main? I’m not sure what’s happened here. Whatever error was created by moving it to draft then main again was fixed and the page was working fine? I didn’t use the draft script (if you check my log I consistently use the draft script per your last feedback on drafting) because I didn’t want it to post notes to my talk page. I created the article so there was no need to notify myself etc etc. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz LOL. I moved the draft to “Wikipedia” which is project space, instead of “article”. Wow. I can’t explain how I had that brain fart. Thanks for pointing it out. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well, I bet that mistake doesn't happen twice! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz no, it will not. A sign to pay more attention. Cheers Liz. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Are you done with reviewing Balloon (1982 film)? Two days for patrolling a new article is a bit long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Kudpung. I do not see the significant coverage required or any criteria per NFILM. I have asked the creator to provide sources but had no response. I feel this article is suitable for XFD. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising your patrolling. I was just surprised that you were taking so long to decide. I'm rather old fashioned and I do a thorough job of my reviews so I'm a bit slower than most but it still doesn't take me more than a minute or three ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung I did not think you were criticising at all! . Feedback or questions always welcome here. I am also quite slow with some of them - and tag with the reviewing thing because I was a little tired of doing work looking for the sources and verifying to them come back and find someone has reviewed the page I just spent time reviewing! I left that tag there so that another editor would not come and mark as reviewed when I do not think notability is met. Thoughts? Would you second a PROD? MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It does indeed look a bit dubious but I don't patrol articles from that part of the world. I leave it to reviewers who can read the sources and judge if they are reliable ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: @Kudpung: I have started an AfD, please comment whether it is notable and if you could find any sources. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I’ve seen that you’ve recently moved the page Quadrant House to the draft space. As I have already (correctly) pointed out to another user, the page should not be moved there as it satisfies all the requirements of notability and sources. Indeed, it is enough for national heritage listed buildings like those one to show that they are listed (which is proven with the Sahra link at the bottom). This is enough for the article to be in the main space. In addition to that, I’ve even added an independent, reliable source, further reinforcing the reliability of the article. This is the convention for articles about national registered monuments. I’d be glad if you moved the page back to the main space. Thank you! 37.117.137.30 (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BUILDING

and after doing so, I agree this building is sufficiently notable as to warrant an article and so it has been moved to mainspace.

Please note that draftify is a soft option where notability is borderline. It leaves the article in tact, and just gives the creator more time to add sources. It is very important you understand that guidelines are just that, we have no firm rules. This means that just because a guideline states notability is presumed, this does not guarantee an article on the topic is ready for main space. You had only one reference in the article, and you also did not appear to have the heritage status of this building mentioned in the article. It was only included in a list of heritage buildings. Regardless of notability, reliable sources are required to verify claims.

Also, tens of thousands of homes in Melbourne, where I live, are granted a degree of heritage protection, and I am not convinced they all belong on the project. So, I took some time to assess this building and found coverage in several books. A quick scan on the library databases shows mentions elsewhere, so I am convinced the heritage status exists and there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. A lovely building indeed, and congratulations on getting an article to main. In future, regardless of the notability guideline, it will be far less likely for an article to be draftified if there are multiple reliable sources in the references section.

In most circumstances, coverage in multiple reliable sources means a subject can have an article. Have a lovely day. I've been to South Africa and it is a lovely country. Warmest, MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your time and help. And thank you for the advice! I've never been to South Africa (I live in Europe myself), but I really like the country. However, I cannot help but notice how little South African historical buildings and sites are covered and represented on Wikipedia. Having found some lists of heritage sites, it is my plan now to at least create some of the articles, and your advice will be definitely helpful in that. See you!--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

what does it mean that you've reviewed my user page? 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@2006toyotacorrola it’s just a technical issue. For some reason your UP was showing up in the new page patrol feed. Doesn’t usually happen. You may disregard. 😊 MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

ok 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If not, here it is: Invitation to join NPP Discord. Atsme 💬 📧 13:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme I feel embarrassed to admit I do not know what Discord is 😂 but thank you 😊. I’ll try to see how it works and join. I’ve been patrolling so much lately! I’m participating in the backlog. I skip over a lot of reviews but films have become my favourite to review as I practice because they’re usually easy to put in the yes/no category. Missing our chats at NPP school 😊 MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there; you left a

@Thisisnotcam if you pull that article out of draft space without providing three of your best sources demonstrating notability, I will nominate it for deletion. Draftifying is an appropriate measure per the NPP flowchart where notability is borderline. It’s possible this person is notable but unless you demonstrate significant coverage that substantiates a claim of notability per WP:BASIC and the general notability guideline - it’s not appropriate for inclusion and will be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia has no firm rules and any article without notability can be draftified within 90 days of publishing. I strongly recommend you do not move that back to main. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thisisnotcamwhere are the sources? 12 of your 19 references are primary sources being articles written by the subject. Being published in the Guardian is not on its face a claim to notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

[6]https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/online-harassment-female-journalists/2021/03/13/ed24b0aa-82aa-11eb-ac37-4383f7709abe_story.html

[7]https://www.cjr.org/analysis/two-facebook-leaks.php

[8]https://diversityhire.substack.com/p/episode-46-fuck-zuck-with-julia-carrie

And happy to add these two to the lineup as well:

[9]https://nypost.com/2022/07/04/guardians-julia-carrie-wong-slammed-for-likening-transphobia-to-fascism/

[10]https://podcasts.apple.com/mu/podcast/the-guardians-julia-carrie-wong-understanding/id1539153617?i=1000528853861&l=fr ɯɐɔ 💬 01:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! However, this podcast has no editorial policies and doesn't appear to meet

WP:NBIO's RS requirements. This podcast in interview format and is potentially a primary source, which might not meet the "secondary" requirement. VickKiang (talk)

01:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @VickKiang I agree. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang Establishing secondary sources for web-only journalists is difficult — particularly because journalists are the ones writing the sources we often pull from, and we usually don't write about ourselves or others. The "interview format" podcast is actually produced by Harvard Business Review, and has established editorial guidelines. The other podcast is facilitated by reporters, and while I agree that it has no posted editorial policies, when looking at standards for news sources, in my view (which clearly seems to differ from yours, which is fine), a podcast with a specific focus on race and the experiences of journalists of color, hosted by reputable reporters employed by other outlets, with a discussion of her specific experience as a journalist of color in the newsroom, seems not just notable to include with regard to references and her work, but also cements biographical facts about her and the impact of her work. Can I find more secondary sources? Probably! Will they meet the standards you have for sources, which is a strict interpretation of WP guidelines? Maybe not! But that's just speculation. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has no firm rules," and yet you feel the need to nominate the article for deletion if I don't pony up three sources that you must not have looked through yourself? I'm confused why you feel so strongly about this specific draft and are not open to it being edited and improved upon by other editors in the mainspace, where it certainly passes muster compared to other drafts and even other BLPs. This just feels very

WP:SPIDEY to me. I'll dig up three of the sources where I feel like she establishes notability, but certainly not because if I don't, you'll get into some dispute about this in a different way. ɯɐɔ 💬

01:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I passed by this draft as well and IMHO it's at best borderline notable, because she works in

WP:BURDEN is still an important policy that is applicable here. Many thanks, also pinging WaddlesJP13. VickKiang (talk)

01:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thisisnotcam This is not a content dispute. I do not get involved in content disputes. Your article is one of the dozens I have draftified merely because it does not contain reliable secondary sources showing significant coverage. What I am saying is that there is no firm rule that means merely because you are an experienced editor, you are exempt from practices including the draftification of a recently created article. Also, those sources are not appropriate. The first is not significant coverage of the subject. Second also. Third is not a reliable source. Fourth is getting there. Fifth is a podcast - generally not reliable. @VickKiang reflects how I feel. I also please request that you remain friendly with me. All I have done is draftify an article. You and I have never interacted before. I objectively and dispassionately executed the functions of a new page reviewer without any thought as to the merit of the article subject or its creator, I simply disagree with their notability at this moment and so moved it to draft space where you could add sources, and then submit for review by a second editor. You have absolutely no evidence for the claim that I will "get into dispute" about this another way. I do not get involved in stubborn arguments - and if you feel that way I am happy to withdraw from the discussion entirely and leave another reviewer to make a decision. Please assume good faith. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang @MaxnaCartaThis is getting to be excessive. The original conversation on my talk page, which was really more of a response to a script template, established my reasoning for including her work: Obviously some of her work is cited as examples to back up her reporting that I mentioned, but there are numerous secondary sources that establish notability and credibility for her work. 10 out of the 19 sources are secondary and include her as a subject, with the rest used to establish her body of work.with the rest used to establish her body of work. I don't like content disputes, and I also don't like being faced with blanket remarks about a draft with no clear indication of what to change.

I can appreciate that you draftified it just like many other articles at a time, and as a recent changes patroller, I can empathize with that. But this was a redlinked, requested article to be written by a WikiProject (that does, admittedly, contain many novice users) and pushing this into the mainspace is a priority for me — and the slapping of an AfC on this just feels like it'll be tossed into a void with an unclear barrier to overcome for it to hit "notability," only for it to get rejected by another passing editor and tossed into a void for another four months. I say this and I also recognize that it isn't your problem, nor did you cause the issue. I'm sorry for coming off as unkind (I hate how the internet warps tone), and I hope that you can understand why I feel strongly about getting this out, and how frustrating it can be to receive a message with subjective and unclear guidance. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm confused how does a creation recommendation in a WikiProject indicate notability? Also, the AfC is an automatic procedure using the move to draft script as per User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, unfortunately, the script doesn't customise based on each editor's "experience". Further, how frustrating it can be to receive a message with subjective and unclear guidance- if you intend to move this back to mainspace I'll consider starting an AfD discussion. However, I've also pinged WaddlesJP13, a prolific NPP who might provide an alternative perspective. Like I said, I had challenged the refs you provided and your (IMHO, of course) potentially misleading statement on secondary refs. and pushing this into the mainspace is a priority for me — and the slapping of an AfC on this just feels like it'll be tossed into a void with an unclear barrier to overcome for it to hit "notability," only for it to get rejected by another passing editor and tossed into a void for another four months- if AfC reviewers also concur that this is non-notable, I'm finding it a bit confusing to understand why this would need an article based on WikiProject recommendations. I don't like content disputes, and I also don't like being faced with blanket remarks about a draft with no clear indication of what to change- I did provide my point-of-view on the refs, however, you continue to state that the refs are RS that are SIGCOV, which is fine, but I do not view my feedback as vague. Many thanks, to avoid this potential notability (not content) dispute I will abstain until another reviewer comments also. Thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how much insight I can give on this person's notability, but it looks to me that if this article has disputed notability then it should just be submitted for review through the AFC process. That way, someone more experienced at BLP reviews than me and someone with less of a COI towards the article itself than you guys can thoroughly review it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@

AfC page

:

Established users in good standing, however, are encouraged to not clutter up the AfC queue with pages that do not need support or guidance from AfC reviewers. If you are not required to use the AfC process but still need time to work on a new article before it's ready for mainspace, please do not submit it for review.

I truly thought this was a non-controversial article, with non-controversial references, and it was reviewed after I published it. Everything seemed pretty smooth, and then with no discussion it was reverted to a draft. I'm probably going to take some time away before coming back to this, or just pass it off entirely to a different editor working on this project, because it seems like despite my best efforts and intentions, this isn't going to go anywhere if I'm involved. Thank you for your note, I'll pass your suggestion on to the other members of our project. ɯɐɔ 💬 01:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:DROPTHESTICK. ɯɐɔ 💬

01:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

So if I'm interpreting correctly just because it was initially a discussion between you and Max I shouldn't be involved in it? I've already stated that I'll abstain from now onwards, apologies if my comment was unclear/vague. I'd be curious- where is the policy/guideline/rule that states after one editor expressed a view I couldn't comment or participate? If I'm missing something, do point me out, but I'd be interested which of my previous comments are controversial or offensive. Further, if one editor marked it as patrolled, which policy/guideline/essay states that I couldn't another express different views (AfD, draftify, etc...)? I strongly disagree with the notability of the draft, per your views I will try to avoid discussions with you on this topic in the future if you view that I am

WP:POINT based on three comments, despite that you initiating the discussion and commented far more times. Many thanks for your work and efforts in recent changes patrol, apologies that we're both getting a bit confrontational, I've changed/clarified my comments a bit! VickKiang (talk)

02:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The editor does not seem happy with me either, and accused me of SPIDEY conduct which is and I quote "climb[ing] the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man to promote [my] cause...[behaviour which] is strongly discouraged and will result in a complete and utter block from editing Wikipedia".

All because I draftified, as told the draftify would be undone unilaterally, and then said I would nominate it for deletion because of a lack of sourcing?

Yeah OK.

@Thisisnotcam, you don't seem to wanna deal with me, you don't wanna deal with Vick, so why don't you just submit your article back to AFC and let another editor handle it? I will not review it (Though I reserve my right to nominate it for deletion or participate in any deletion discussions raised by others) and I will avoid reviewing your articles in future to prevent further tension. I hope this assists. So sorry our first interaction could not have been more pleasant.

Have a nice day. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@

This isn't fun anymore. I agree with you that it's unfortunate our first interaction wasn't more pleasant; hopefully the next time we cross paths it'll be less tense. Cheers; thank you for your work. ɯɐɔ 💬

02:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk

@Goldsztajn thank you so much! I’m happy to review an article of yours or an editor you know who’s got one in the backlog if you would like. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet, I'm not finished. :) But facetiousness aside, it's kind of you to offer, but at this point I've got nothing in the queue. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn Oh, I meant I am thankful for you starting the review. I’m ya my first GA nomination and there may be heaps of work for me to do to get it over the line. Im up for the challenge! Just so excited to have a reviewer because it’s only been nominated for a month or so, and some sit for a long time. I have some journal articles to use and replace the case with as a source if you need me to. And also if you want some of the journals I’ve cited for source verification I can email put them on my google drive and email you a link. Because this case is older I had to literally go to the basement of a library and find the original paper journal articles for this case. MaxnaCarta (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi - in terms of sourcing, I've got good access to virtual and physical libraries, so I think I'll be good. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaxnaCarta Thanks a ton for your time to review my work. I am looking to improve on my editing skills & need some direction from you for the page draft which you declined for the main space.

The page I was referring to for building Andre's page was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Syngal (since both are a bit low profile CEOs of listed firms, so was a more comparable page than with a celebrity CEO like Jeff Bezos). In the page I referred (i.e. above link) I don't see too many references or dedicated articles on the subject. Moreover, I thought the page I am building was balanced with negative points around IPO, loss etc and the main story about the entrepreneur, compared to Sonia's page which has no negative points.

(a) I can see dedicated articles on Andre such as the below on Andre: https://www.thejakartapost.com/ms/gojek-2019/2021/12/05/andre-soelistyo-becomes-the-only-indonesian-to-grace-2021-bloomberg-50.html If the above link is not the right direction, can you please give some examples for another page/person - that can help me understand better?

(b) Also, please do let me know any points which look like advertisement OR what else I can do to make the page more balanced.

I am following tech industry (& people in there) in APAC and building pages around it. Just want to learn and contribute. Vishwasthakkar (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vishwasthakkar hi there. Not sure what work I reviewed? Someone else reviewed this article. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaxnaCarta

Please see the link for your comment on 10th Oct'22. I clicked on your signature and came to your page. Pretty sure you reviewed and left a comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vishwasthakkar

Also, the draft article page mentions that you declined the article with your name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andre_Soelistyo

Vishwasthakkar (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@MaxnaCartaSince you claim that you have NOT declined the page draft. I will 'undo' the same & resubmit it.

A response would be highly appreciated, so I know the next steps. Thanks Vishwasthakkar (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@

shout at me. I was looking at Sonia Syngal. You are trying to get one or two articles approved. I and a small number of volunteers patrol thousands of new articles a month during our spare time. You need to be patient and wait - “undoing” a rejection or decline is not permitted. First, it is not even necessary. If you want to bypass my decision, you can just press the resubmit button, there is no need to undo my decline. Only a rejection takes that button away. Thanks for linking me to your talk page. I notice that another editor had the same article speedily deleted a month ago. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The person is not sufficiently notable. The coverage you raise is not sufficiently in-depth. Routine coverage of an executive is insufficient for a standalone Wikipedia article. Please do not attempt to keep resubmitting this article, its been previously deleted by an administrator and so I will not approve it. MaxnaCarta (talk

) 11:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta Thanks for the reply.

Wasn't shouting, meant to stress on the word. Apologies for that. You guys are truly doing a great job & I want to be a part of the small team that can help on wiki, hence trying to learn the ropes here.

> The article was 'undeleted' by another admin - as it wasn't that bad. I edited the article as per the input given. However, if you can help share a ref article based on which I can keep working on this one - will be very helpful. On my end will try to find a better angle (if applicable); else will delete the draft myself.

I am just trying to learn, excuse me once again for the chase earlier. I am also working in my free time on wiki as truly believe in the free knowledge shared here & I have personally benefitted a lot from it. Look forward to learning from you on writing better articles.

Vishwasthakkar (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Admins can undelete on request and that is fine. However one person nominated it for deletion, an administrator deleted it, another editor moved it to drafted and I (without even knowing this history), declined it. I think if four seperate editors have made a judgement the article does not belong, that should indicate resubmitting has a low chance of success. I’m not sure what there is to learn - the article is well written, it is just not on a notable topic. No amount of writing can fix a lack of notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

ok noted. Thanks a ton

Vishwasthakkar (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaxnaCarta,

I had to revert your AFD closure. There were several editors who voted "Delete" so it can't be a SNOW close even if the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. A nomination withdrawal doesn't stop the clock unless there are no editors who are in favor of deletion.

Before you close any more deletion discussions, please review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure thoroughly. Non-admins should never close any "close call" AFDs or AFDs that might be considered controversial or be challenged. Until you gain more experience, I wouldn't close any discussions unless there is a unanimous decision to Keep, Merge or Redirect an article. If you have questions, please come to my talk page and we can talk more about this. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz You're right, that was my misapplication of the deletion policy and NAC. Thanks for pointing that out. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello MaxnaCarta,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hello MaxnaCarta, you commented on my draft about bokksu. I changed the references and added a few things about the company, I hope that you like the new refs as I tried to avoid interviews. I just resubmitted the draft. Thank you for the comments. OnlineWilly (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @OnlineWilly, after reviewing the article and your best attempt at sourcing this product/company is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The article is rejected. I’m sorry, this is not able to be fixed as meeting our corporate notability guideline is a must for inclusion. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Maxna. Hope you're doing OK. I was wondering if you could give me a second opinion on a page I've just NPP reviewed, as it's related to three articles you DRAFTIFYed earlier. The article is 20th Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party.

When reviewing it I followed the NPP flowchart through to the GNG check. While the article is unsourced, it does contain a credible claim of significance, it's obviously not a BLP, but a Google search did turn up reliable sources on it which I've listed on the article's and the article creator's talk page. As such I tagged the article as unreferenced, and followed the remainder of the left side of the flow chart which eventually said to review the article.

However, when writing the message on the author's talk page, I saw that you had draftified three other stubs by the same author. So I can't help but wonder if DRAFTIFY is a better option here? Should I undo the review and send it to the draft space instead do you think? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh, and to complicate matters further, there is a pre-existing draft with the same name, also unsourced, by a different author, but with more content. Hmmm, think I might need to take a third option here. Copy content from the pre-existing draft, attribute the author at the other page, and then cite it with the citations I've already found! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Took the fourth option! Convinced an admin to

WP:HISTMERGE the two versions of the article (draft and mainspace), and then added a background section using sources that currently exist. Alas the new Politburo members won't be confirmed for another few hours (midday on 23 October 2022 Beijing time), but at least now it should be compliant with GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 20:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it all sorted now @Sideswipe9th? I drafted them because the author legit had placed templates saying they were not finished yet. Plus some were unsourced, had blank sections, etc. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the Politburo one is sorted now! It'll need updating again in another few hours, once the final list of members gets published, but otherwise all is good. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MaxnaCarta,

Just a tip, when you are considering moving an article from main space to Draft space, please check out the experience level of the page creator. If they have been editing Wikipedia for years and have thousands of edits, it is likely they are creating an article in main space rather than draft space and it just isn't finished yet. Moving an early stage article created by an experienced editor to Draft space is likely just to caues animosity towards you. Some editors just prefer to work in main space rather than working out the kinks in Draft space like new editors are advised to do.

While in one sense, all editors are equal here, we have to acknowledge that editors with thousands of edits and years of experience creating articles generally know what they are doing. Their page creations might not look perfect at the moment you are checking them out but try to look at the big picture when deciding what to do. It's perfectly okay for you to do nothing at all or actually taking a moment to help out by improving the article. Just a head's up. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz noted, thank you. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given to MaxnaCarta for collecting more than 200 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

		Rack and pinion Award
		This award is given to MaxnaCarta for collecting more than 15 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		This award is given to MaxnaCarta for doing more than 25 re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• CONGRATULATIONS!!! Lots of recognition from your peers. Good job, MC! Atsme 💬 📧 23:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The article Dietrich v The Queen you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dietrich v The Queen for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn I’m not sure where you’re located, but I literally squealed “NOOOO” in a very comical way. Obviously an error because I saw your message on the review page. I have learned SO much over the last month! Thank you thank you thank you!

Also a HUGE thanks to @Extraordinary Writ. This article was one of the first I ever worked on and after EW rightfully had it delisted from Featured Article because of its poor condition, I asked them for some feedback on getting it back. They gave me pointers and EW, your GAs and FAs really helped me along the way especially with structure.

thanks to you both! MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi MaxnaCarta! I completely understand your shock, hrelieved it was only short-lived! That's the first time I've ever seen this error, quite strange ... I left a message at the bot's talk page, hopefully it can be resolved. More than happy to have collaborated on this, happy to do it again! Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)