Cabrils

Tip of the day...

Wikipedia's alphabetical index of articles

Sometimes it is useful to look up a topic in the same way you would look it up in a paper book‍—‌using an index. Perhaps you are unsure of the precise name of what you are looking for, or maybe you are interested in a word root which has many applications, such as "self-". Or maybe you would just like to browse the index.

Wikipedia has an index of all of its articles. Here are 3 ways of accessing it:

1. A–Z index
2. Special:AllPages
3. Special:Prefixindex

You can place these links on your user page or talk page (or both) for convenient access.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Read more:

Wikipedia:Special pages  

Special:SpecialPages  

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Draft:Mahi_R._Singh

• Dmgy000 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mahi R. Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my article. Could you kindly tell me which part of the article doesn't meet the requirement of eight academic-specific criteria or cite independently?
Is the Fulbright US-Canada Research Chair award not enough for the academic contribution or the research content cited from the professor's website unreliable?
Thanks again for your time and patience.

Dmgy000 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Some evidence of the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship and Fulbright award would be very helpful (as you note, the only evidence is that which is stated on the subject's own website).

Please also address the other issues I raise in my comment, including if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, as you then would have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page. Your contributions history certainly looks consistent with being a paid editor. Cabrils (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I added more evidence of the award and conflict of interest. Dmgy000 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any post by you in relation to possible conflict of interest? In fact you still don't even have a user page?? Cabrils (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I add the conflict of interest in Talk Page, and I add into User Page noew Dmgy000 (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, looks good.

Please see my comments on the Draft's Talk page, where discussion of the draft is more appropriately held than here. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I had more edit based on your comment Dmgy000 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Please see my response on the draft's talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dmgy000,

Thanks for the collaboration. Further to our discussions on the draft's Talk page, draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Neshe

Dear @Cabrils,

Thank you for your review and especially for the links and guidance you provided.

I checked the references, fixed some of them that were in the wrong place, removed the ones that did not follow the guidelines (not self published, not blacklisted, not press releases the ones containing interviews with the artist). In case that there are other references that you consider not following the guidelines, please point me to them and I will either clarify if there is some misunderstanding, or remove them.

None of the sources left should be from blogs, company websites or social media (Twitter, YouTube etc...). They are mainly from magazines and newspapers specialized in showbiz and music.

Regarding your comment regarding the conflict of interest, I don't charge anything by creating this page. I wanted to learn about creating and publishing a Wikipedia page (this is my first wiki page from scratch), and I can assure you that nobody would pay an amateur to do such thing without having proofs of previous contributions. I like her music, I realized that there is no info on her on Wikipedia, and I wanted to add publicly available information similarly as other artists of her relevance have today.

I did get in contact with her to obtain her permission for creating such page and in particular for using her photo. If you need a written proof that the photo can be used, let me know and I can request that.

Regarding the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, I would say that she fulfills the following criteria:

Criteria 1 - As can be seen in the references we kept. Her work was published in important magazines, that are normally independent from the musicians, and not self-published, as those normally have a publishing director / editor who approves author's work before publishing.

Criteria 2 - The song Bingo entered top 100 (place 80) according to Telif Metre (Turkish Copyright meter) data within the first week of it's release.

Criteria 11 - The song Hijo de la Noche was played during several months on Pal Station, Metro FM (and others) in Turkey. The song was also played during some time on Canal RCN in Colombia where it had a very good reception. Bingo on the other hand was played on several national radios stations in Turkey (Metro FM, Canal). I hope that now the page is more consistent and compliant with the Wikipedia rules. Otherwise let me know what else doesn´t fit.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalMusicFan (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cabrils,

I addressed your last comments. Please take a look on Neshe's Talk page.

Cheers GlobalMusicFan (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils. Please see my reply to your requests on the Neshe page Draft's Talk page. GlobalMusicFan (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GlobalMusicFan, thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of H401

Hello Cabrils,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged H401 for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want H401 to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lordseriouspig 11:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Eric_Gilbertson_(climber) article

Hello Cabrils,

Regarding the Eric Gilbertson article, as per WP:ABOUTSELF, some degree of primary sources should be allowed so long as they are not the key source of info in the article, which I am aware is the main issue with how I wrote the article.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@KnowledgeIsPower9281, thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the article's talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Christopher_Klausmeier

Dear @Cabrils,

Thank you for reviewing my article (Draft:Christopher Klausmeier). The requested changes to the references were made by another user, User:Keith D. Please let me know if there are any other changes I should make. Mohammna (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I see the draft has now been accepted, well done. Cabrils (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Douglas_Fang

Dear @Cabrils

thank you for reviewing my article. i am a beginner editor on wikipedia. i have left some thoughts i had on the talk page of Draft:Douglas Fang, please let me know your thoughts on it, because I believe those sources fufill the comments u made. thank you. 陳小幅 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cabrils

I am having some issues publishing my thoughts on my draft article's talk page. so I will instead upload my thoughts here.

"

Here are some notable sources I've identified:

https://wwd.com/feature/fang-appointed-ceo-at-pringle-552906-1981734/ --> CEO Appointment

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/pringles-new-family-man --> CEO Appointment

https://wwd.com/feature/pringle-of-scotland-presses-pause-with-last-collection-set-for-fall-1203620441/ --> 2020 Interview

https://podcast.rthk.hk/podcast/item.php?pid=826&eid=213648&lang=zh-CN --> Podcast by local station on subject

https://www.wenweipo.com/a/202310/31/AP65400e04e4b0fdf828a4da08.html --> News article on speech by subject

"

thank you. 陳小幅 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

nevermind. ive managed to leave my thoughts on the talk page of my draft article now. i apologise for the spam. 陳小幅 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@陳小幅, thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Cameron Stewart (journalist) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cameron Stewart (journalist). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@GMH Melbourne, thanks for the ping. Cabrils (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Consideration of Tag Removal(s) for page Peter F. Barth

If fitting, could you take a fresh look at the page “Peter F. Barth”,  and see if its two “page issues” warrant removal at this time (due to COI, I understand that I should not remove them.) It received these, plus about 50 edits (undisputed), from one editor between January 17 and 23, and closure was brought to the final {cn}  tag only last week. I have not added to, or rewritten, page text since that time.

Your handling of this request would give me the highest confidence that the decisions (or edits) on this matter are indeed made in strict accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and the spirit of its mission.

I remain most appreciative of your early help with the page’s draft, which undoubtedly ensured its continuation/successful evolution since launch — and likewise for “Mind teachings of Tibet” (top 3% accepted submissions rating) and “Georg Limnaeus” (top 17%.) Thank you, once again.~~~~ Thapkhay (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for the ping, and kind comments. Good to see you are still around, and doing a little editing too.

I've had a fresh look at the page, and see the substantive edits by Skyerise in particular. At this stage I am inclined not to remove the tags, because in my view they remain essentially true: at least many (if not the majority) of sources are very closely associated with you; and you remain the major contributor to the article.

While I, and evidently other editors and reviewers, remain satisfied that the page meets the notability criteria, I think the tags should remain so readers are aware of those issues. I realise this would be somewhat disappointing or frustrating for you, but I do think they are valid and within the guidelines at this time.

All the best. Cabrils (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Great to hear back from you! Thank you. As you could probably glean from the ping title (via its reference to “tag(s)”), I was unsure whether it would serve the readership best to remove both tags, or only one, at this stage.  Indeed, I now agree with your view on the second tag, “a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject” —  this was clearly true at the outset, and is still a reasonable caution to offer to the readers.

Regarding the first tag,  however, I would like to ask you to consider this analysis of sources now cited (quotes and categories A.-E. are per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE):

“The most reliable sources” (published, independent , and third-party) which are now included in the article are:

A. “Mainstream newspapers”  (e.g., “Argus-Courier”, est. 1928, acquired by “The New York Times” in 2001; see Ref 1, cited three times)

B. “Magazines published by respected publishing houses” (e.g., “University of Vermont, est. 1791, publisher of UVM Magazine (incl. online feature articles ); see Ref 2, this article is written by a senior UVM staff writer, and serves as a Secondary Source — as per WP:SECONDARY SOURCE, based on the writer’s analysis of a multitude of primary sources, including UVM records, cited four times)

C. “Journals published by respected publishing houses” (e.g., “Library Journal”, est. 1876; see Refs 5 and 18, plus “Marin Small Publishers Association, publisher of “SPEX”,  est.. 1979, now BAIPA.org; see Ref 17)

D. “Peer-reviewed journals” (e.g. “Physica”, est. by Elsevier in 1921, as Physica; “Physica A” was created by them in 1975 to focus on “Statistical mechanics and its applications”, the subject’s field, per WP-SOURCETYPES “academic and peer-reviewed publications” are  “the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science”; see Refs 9, 11, 12)

E. “Books published by respected publishing houses” (e.g. “Shambhala Publications”, includes “Snow Lion Publications”, est. in 1969; see Refs 4, 19 and 20, plus “Wisdom Publications”, est. 1983; see Refs 3, 13 and 15)

Dear Cabrils, may I ask you to consider this analysis for the core set of citations presented in the subject article, in combination with your earlier evaluation(s). I think one can now see clearly that it is based on “solid ground”, with an array of the highest-caliber reliable sources (per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE ) and it is due to this,  I am recommending that “tag one” be removed at this time. The statement, “This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject,” is no longer true;  these are all independent or third-party sources, the more frequently cited sources are indeed Secondary Sources (although it is clear that the writer’s’ conclusions are not in themselves proofs.) Furthermore, clicking on the link provided with this tag leads the reader to a suggestive description of “self-published” and “questionable” sources, neither of which pertain to any of the above core examples of sources provided in the article. The tag is now a misrepresentation of the article.

Furthermore, by this one can see that the first part of the warning stating “potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral”, is no longer true. These sources are verifiable. The second part of the warning, and the risk to neutrality is also largely eliminated; I would still have agreed to it, had it not been for any scent of lack of neutrality being removed by Skyerise via 50+ edits. I appreciated that meticulous effort and how, indeed, the page was appropriately cut of any “peacocking” and with self-published works included as a basis for any statements presented.

Based on this page history and the above rationale, and your input , I am now considering requesting the removal of first tag via the talk page of the article, but the first tag only.

In any case, I continue to be completely appreciative of all your help and input on this (and welcome any more thoughts you may have on this matter.) Thank you, once again. Peter Thapkhay (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter, thank you for that detail.

On perusal, however, I'm not comfortable removing the tags.

On looking at the page afresh, in my view it is a long way from being a clearly notable entry. The mere fact it is written almost exclusively by you, the subject, requires it to meet a higher standard because of the inherent conflict of interest (see WP:AB, WP:PROUD).

For example, the University of Vermont piece written by Kevin Morganstein Fuerst, is effectively authored by you: it opens "Peter Barth G'81 sent us a class note in June 2024 that was so rich in detail and included such wonderful photos that we had to make it a "Class Notes Extended' feature.". You wrote and sent a biography to Class Notes Extended and Kevin published either literally what you wrote, or an edited extract of it, and so in my view this article does not contribute towards establishing notability as defined.

Please be mindful that the page needs to clearly meet the relevant criteria such as WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR etc.

Accordingly, I would be cautious about your current course of action.

Having said that, if you wish, yes, you could post your thoughts on the Talk page, or on WP:TEAHOUSE, where they are much more likely to be attended. Cabrils (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for both notes you have provided in response to my question(s). Even your “discouraging” and BOLD words, given in the framework and spirit of Wikipedia are very much appreciated.

Tag Two: Indeed, due to possibilities for “lack of neutrality”(as you and WP:PROUD, etc. note), the page continues to warrant the second page tag.

Tag One and UVM Article: Regarding the “UVM feature article, the full disclosure (up front) speaks to the integrity of their process and an aspect of their reliance upon my input as part of that process. It is a normal part of any information gathering for a feature article to obtain testimony from the the subject (if available), and others, and to collect materials (such as, photos, and suggested notes on verifiable “independent” sources” as evidence on the authenticity, or lack of authenticity, of testimony of the subject, or others. UVM also rather uniquely has had access to primary sources on the subject (e. g., including birth certificate — promoting removal of the first {cn} tag, and the physics department’s records — a justifiably reasonable basis for its inclusion as an introductory citation as Ref (2) ) Their research includes both “verifiable” (for a moment/context, this word needs to be understood in their framework, not Wikipedia’s, since institutions rely often on primary sources which they can, and must verify) primary (such as the range of related technical papers) and independent secondary sources (others such as peer groups via their evaluations for oral defense of thesis and certification of the published thesis and presentation at a major technical conference.) Like all mature educational organizations, UVM does not consider WP a reliable source for academic and publishing purposes; however, for excellent reasons, WP considers them to “generally” be the most reliable sources (indeed, with some exceptions, as you point out.)

The UVM affair began in late March, after I submitted to them one photo (shown of me with some family - they correctly removed the names of all living persons from the caption, including my wife, another example of their professionalism) along with two lines of updates (announcing a “special event “, 1) a celebration of my 68th birthday, and 2) my retirement status) into their online communication system (for alumni.) The UVM staff who reviewed this input soon realized this was my first contact with them since 1981 and thereby promptly initiated, (and took the reins), in championing a process that, five months later, elevated their work to a “published UVM feature article.” It took four to five months for them (“us” per Fuerst, referring to the UVM team) to complete their work. Fuerst (an executive at UVM’s Foundation) explicitly, and unequivocally, identifies himself as the writer, an act which gives UVM major legal responsibility (and potential jeopardy) for the content and must be approved at their highest levels. Details about the team’s (“us”) overall vetting process remain unknown (to me), but I cannot think of one reason to question them on this matter; I think you would agree that UVM would not compromise their standards for production and publication of this feature article. They will also have their own standards as to what is notable, but that provides no risk to (and is in fact praised by) Wikipedia, which has its own meaningful definition of notability.

That the UVM subject’s story (based on their view of notability) echoes aspects of the Wikipedia story (based on its own) on the one or two snippets of the subject’s life story, is curious (and, understandably, may raise suspicion.)It surprised me (and was more sugary than I expected.) On the other hand, it is totally not surprising, when one considers that they are both largely based on each of their own sets of verified facts (each in their own way), which included many common sources; this similarity may actually be construed to show that the stories’ views of notability are similar, and in this way provide a bit of validation to their efforts (only a bit; for example, UVM was totally disinterested in the personal life of the subject, as well as his extensive career; like Wikipedia they thought the briefest mention is enough. I now totally agree with that, as you have also.)

Perhaps really the crux of all this matter — and the very helpful editorial guidance which you provided — is that it, in spite of the UVM article being a WP preferred reliable source, you clearly have demonstrated to me how it can create serious uncertainty with respect to the reliability of the provided source; this, in itself, is enough to give me serious pause. That you see so clearly that tag one still is warranted is now enough for me.

Based on my experience with the soundness of your advice (on several occasions in the past!), and your excellent efforts and sincere commitment to Wikipedia and its readership (also, with some good results for readers, apparently, so far, in terms of inspiring my small efforts), I have no further intent to initiate a reconsideration of removing the “two page tags” at this time.

Thank you, once again, for helping me get to the heart of the matter. Thapkhay (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Draft:Anna_Szyjkowska-Piotrowska

Thank you for your advice and help. I tried to implement your suggestions, can you please check if the article is good now? Majku17 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, do NOT remove Comments and Draft info boxes from the Draft.

Secondly, before undertaking any further assessment, you must please address directly the issues raised in my comments, including WP:THREE and WP:COI. Cabrils (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Cabrils for accumulating at least 100 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Worm Gear Award
		This award is given in recognition to Cabrils for accumulating at least 7 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Gilbertson (climber) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Gilbertson (climber) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Gilbertson (climber) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Revision to Alex Kentsis

Dear @Cabrils, I've revised the Alex Kentsis draft page and included specific details on the revision in its Talk page.

Draft talk:Alex Kentsis#Revision to academic biography

Thanks for your help.

Neenotchka (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Draft and Draft Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see expanded explanation on the Draft Talk page. Thanks. Neenotchka (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Draft's Talk page, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see additional responses on the Draft's Talk Page. Appreciate your help in validating COI box, thank you. Neenotchka (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Draft's Talk page, thank you. Cabrils (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Neenotchka, well done, thanks for your patience developing the draft. Page now accepted. Cabrils (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Isa_Abbassi

Thank you for your feedback. I updated the citations using the automatic citation for most of them. Hopefully they fit the correct style now.

I also added 2 sources that support the notability. I added a topic on the drafts talk page identifying the 3 best sources to support notability as you suggested.

You also mentioned it reads like a cv. I have been following the articles on Paterson PD and thought it was an interesting topic. I used ChatGPT to help me find sources and draft an initial body which i then edited. Is there anything specific that needs to be revised? Most of the statements/sentiment were revised from the public articles that i used as source material.

Thanks again for your time to review. This is my first Wikipedia article and it is a learning experience. NYYanks01 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi NYYanks01, thanks for the ping. That all sounds very progressive. I'll try to look at the revisions shortly.

In the meantime, I highly recommend you create at User Page (see WP:UP), which will be much more efficient for communicating, and will be helpful if you need to declare a conflict of interest: please see, and address, the WP:COI inquiry I made in my comment on the draft.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jack_Logan

Hello Cabrils, thank you for your assistance, I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because i added additional sourced and have edited the article and removed the infobox as well (as advised by jmcgnh from the real-time chat. Hope you can take a second look and review. Thank you so much! 112.204.160.39 (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cabrils, i created my account and now uses this username just as you advised. I also included the draft within the scope of WikiProject YouTube (see talk page) as i have learned that it is dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to YouTube and its personalities. I hope this helps us with this article. Thank you so much! RavenFireblade (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RavenFireblade,

Thanks for the ping.

1. I see you have declared a conflict of interest on your Talk page (good work creating a User Page etc). What is the nature of your conflict? Are you Jack Logan? Are you being paid etc?

2. As previously requested, 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.

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cabrils, i am a follower and a friend to him. NO i am not being paid to do this. I just learned that there are Filipino vloggers here in Wikipedia so i maybe i should try. Can you help me reassess the article again?. RavenFireblade (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As previously requested, 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.

And also, as previously requested, 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").

Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 and #2 because the person has been nominated for such a significant award or honor, and the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; (internet culture in the Philippines) RavenFireblade (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As requested, please post any comments onto the draft's Talk page so they are more easily accessible to other reviewers:

1. As requested, 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. And also, as previously requested, 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").

3. Please copy from above and paste your clarification regarding the nature of your conflict of interest.

Thanks Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cabrils, i have entered the clarification in the draft's talk page. Hope you can find it and reasses. I also submitted the draft for review. Thank you! RavenFireblade (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I've declined the re-submission because you have not substantially amended the draft as required. Please see my comments on the Draft page. Cabrils (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)