User talk:Dr. Kadzi/Archives/2020/August

Inappropriate usernames

Thanks for keeping an eye out for inappropriate usernames; however, some of your recent calls have not exactly been accurate: for instance, real names are allowed, this was not a clear-cut violation and should probably have been discussed with the user first, and this username in no way is a possible violation. Please try to be more careful in the future. Salvio 21:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Dr. Kadzi. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Niceland Seafood

Hi Dr,

Thanks for reviewing Niceland Seafood. I wasn't sure about some of the language and maybe I should have gone with my gut and been less sloppy with it. I will tighten it up and resubmit. Thank you for your time and advice. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: Thanks for the message. It was close and without the language style I'll be happy to submit it. Thank you.   Kadzi   (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you@Dr. Kadzi:. Edited and resubmited. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir @Dr. Kadzi: - did you have a chance to have another look? Regards. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: I'll take another look later on today if another reviewer haven't got to it.   Kadzi   (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you@Dr. Kadzi:!! You truly are a scholar and a gentleman. We here at Wikipedia are privileged to have you! MaskedSinger (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Good morning @Dr. Kadzi: How are you today? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Dr. Kadzi: - do you think you will have a chance today to have another look at the page? Yours kindly. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hope I'm not bothering you @Dr. Kadzi: and I sincerely apologise if I am. It's just that I made the changes you suggested and now awaiting your further review. Doesn't seem as though anyone else will review and they're leaving you to do it. If there is anything else that's required to make the page acceptable please let me know and I will correct accordingly. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: rest assured, I will get to it in due course   Kadzi   (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Dr. Kadzi:! MaskedSinger (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Dr. Kadzi: Hope you've had a good week. Do you have an idea of when due course will be? Everyday I wake up and wonder if today will be the day and I think about it constantly all day. Probably better for my patience or lack thereof if let me know an estimated time. Be well. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger: Hi, please note I am a volunteer and do not do this full time. I prioritise newly submitted articles to review so that any problematic articles do not stay on Wikipedia for long. There are currently around 3100 draft articles awaiting review and I work through them (as do others) in no particular order, and the current expected time limit for a review is 2+ months. That being said, I will prioritise your article and I will give you a loose expected limit of 7 days for me to complete that.

When I am reviewing it, I will mark it as under review. The draft page will show a blue 'Under review' banner that may last up to 12 hours. In the meantime, please continue to work on it as you would any other article as they can always be improved. Thank you.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My dear @Dr. Kadzi: thank you so much for your reply. Honestly I'm not sure what else to do to improve it. I did my research and put everything in it that I felt was appropriate. Don't think there's anything new from the last 2 weeks to add but I will have a look. The only thing I would add is the infobox and logo. I will see which fields to add to this. Re the logo, are you able to assist? Images aren't my strong suit. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed two storefront URLs from this article. Did you check all of the references before you accepted this draft? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Yep however apologies for the oversight. Is the article alright in the current condition or will it need further maintenance?   Kadzi   (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a bit marginal on sources and notability, but I'm not going to second guess you on everything. The other problem with the article is that it comes too close to stating aspirations and goals of the organization as if they were bald facts in Wikipedia's voice. But that's relatively easy to fix. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I agree with what you're saying, for this submission I used the very baseline of what was acceptable as per the AFC Core purpose - it would probably be kept at afc. I'll take another look and tag / cleanup if necessary, cheers.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Kadzi:@Jmcgnh: Thanks for reviewing it and thanks for your input. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

White swamphen move

Hi, thanks for moving the article, there seems to be a little problem now, because the GA review link has become a redlink? FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: No worries I'm in the process of cleaning the move up now. :)   Kadzi   (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I can also go through the article and replace usages of the old names when you're done with the technical part. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: all done   Kadzi   (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tagging of Draft:Farrukh Hummayoun

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Draft:Farrukh Hummayoun. I do not think that Draft:Farrukh Hummayoun fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because This person has not yet demonstrated notability, but mentions of publications could be part of a properly neutral article, if sources are found. Not at G11 levels of promotion.. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A Man About the House

Hi Dr Kadzi

Just a note that I have reverted your move of A Man About the House, and the associated disambiguation page. There was a requested move discussion at the talk page Talk:A Man About the House (disambiguation), which established the film as primary topic, so it would very rarely be appropriate to move the page again without starting a fresh full RM discussion on it.

It's great that you are helping out with entries at WP:RM/TR, but please remember that each entry listed there must be evaluated on its merits to determine if it is genuinely uncontroversial. Always check whether there's a genuine reason given for the move - in this case, the only rationale given was "standard method of disambiguation", which is not a rationale that really makes sense. And then assess it there could be any reasons not to make the move, such as doubt over the primary topic or previous RMs. If there's any doubt about it then always err on the side of discussion by clicking the "discuss" link to open a full RM discussion, rather than going ahead and making the move. Cheers, and happy editing!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)