User Talk: Avgeekamfot

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Khalaf al Habtoor

More reference has been added and content slightly changed. can you please review it again

Necropolis of Amorosi page

Thanks a lot for your help in submitting the article "Necropolis of Amorosi". Is it possible to have an accurate feedback in order to improve the page? --LIUCAurora (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits on KA Paul Citation

Clearly the FAA record for the flight shows that it is de-registered due to expiry. You've had citation required. How do you cite the FAA registry when they don't a permanent link for it? You can check on this link with N4522V. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult If you are familiar with how to cite this, do update the article with it.
:I don't know what you're referencing here… Also you should sign your talk posts by including <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end. Avgeekamfot (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about the edits that you did on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._A._Paul&oldid=1228177263. On this page, you added the citation needed tag for the flight's registration status. I'm not familiar with how you would cite a government website where there is a search feature which displays the relevant data but doesn't have a permanent link for a specific identifier. On the link above, when you key in the aircraft's N Number, you get the status. How would you go about citing that? Dkrish24 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)dkrish24

:Not sure if I did it correctly either but I have added a citation to the FAA Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::I didn't realise that the FAA website actually supported a query param based permalink. Let's hope it stays functional. Dkrish24 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I included an archive link ↗ which should continue working regardless! Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2023

Hello, and thank you for your edits.

Just to make sure, remember to follow the correct format for airport pages. Use “begins,” not “starts” when listing a new route. The correct format can be seen at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT ↗

Thank you! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC))

Interesting. Thanks for the information and link!

Badr Mohammed Al Meer ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Badr Mohammed Al Meer ↗. 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. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector

You might want to submit evidence about SimplyFlying to User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. It is a good intermediate step short of getting source onto the Wikipedia deprecated list, which takes a ''lot'' of work. Best read the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector FAQ first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for this advice. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Simple Flying

I saw you removed a number of citations to Simple Flying by claiming this is not a reliable source. Can you please direct me to the discusssion in which it was stated so? '''Jetstreamer''' ''{{sup|Talk}}'' 20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

:I most recently tried to spark a wider discussion for a clearer outcome but only one editor replied. A past discussion is here ↗. Per the suggestion of another user above on my talk page, it's also been added to User:Headbomb/unreliable. Based on my reading of WP:RS ↗ and evaluation of Simple Flying, it seems to clearly fail the requirements. Do you disagree? Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::If in doubt, let's don't use it. Thanks.--'''Jetstreamer''' ''{{sup|Talk}}'' 12:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::I can't see any reason to label it unreliable. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:@Avgeekamfot I cannot see any improvement on deleting the SimpleFlying references and exchanging them with <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> without having a consensus. 
:As you have seen by yourself, the discussions you mentioned are not real discussion per lack of participants. Please start a topic on WP:Aviation ↗ about that topic. 
:Second before just exchanging the references with <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>, please have a sufficient research first, if you find a reference that is more reliable for you to exchange it with. 80.187.75.188 ↗ (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:"In fact, among aviation enthusiasts, Simple Flying is widely viewed as a content farm which regularly publishes inaccurate and plagiarized articles." 
:For this claim there is also a reliable reference missing. 80.187.75.188 ↗ (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
::You need consensus ''for'' a source to be reliable, not the opposite. There's clearly no consensus that Simple Flying is unreliable so I will be removing them as I see them. If you believe that its use is valid where I've removed it, you are welcome to seek consensus to re-add it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:::"You need consensus for a source to be reliable, not the opposite." 
:::Per which Wikipedia rule? The user Headbomb is a user and does not equal Wikipedia consensus or its regulations. 
:::References on Wikipedia are stated unreliable or are deprecated by consensus. 
:::I wonder how you want to know something about reliable sources as you could't give one for the quoted sentence you wrote. Just refering to "aviation enthusiasts" is not a reliable source per WP:RELIABLE ↗. 80.187.73.104 ↗ (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
::::WP:CHALLENGE ↗: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Burden of proof is on you if you want to use Simple Flying, not on me if I want to remove it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Reading further: "it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." And "Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.)" 
:::::Regarding the second quote, your articulation why SimpleFlying may be unrealiable is not sufficient. Referring to some "aviation enthusiasts" is not enough. Just stating it does not meet WP:RS without further explanation is also not enough. "it seems to clearly fail the requirements" is not a factual argument. 
:::::WP does not have a whitelist for reliable sources. But a blacklist for unrealiable and deprecated sources: WP:RSP ↗. SimpleFlying is not listed as an unreliable source in that list. Get consensus to get it listed there. 80.187.73.104 ↗ (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::That's not how it works. You need consensus for reliability, not the other way around. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::If you want to take a source considered reliable by everybody else on Wikipedia and flip it on its head, you do indeed need a damn good argument as to why. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi.. There is a discussion about reliability of SimpleFlying on RSN ↗. More opinions are welcome. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

National varieties of English

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. In a recent edit to the page :Aerolíneas Argentinas ↗, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English ↗ in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English ↗. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English ↗. For something related to another English-speaking country ↗, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the ''first'' author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style ↗. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk ↗. Thank you.  '''Jetstreamer''' ''{{sup|Talk}}'' 12:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding the above, MOS:RETAIN ↗ applies.--'''Jetstreamer''' ''{{sup|Talk}}'' 12:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::Hey, assume this is regarding Aerolíneas Argentinas ↗. I understand that MOS:RETAIN applies but the article was already inconsistent which goes against WP:ARTCON. I'm not comfortable enough in British English which is why I switched it to be consistently American English. According to MOS:RETAIN: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub ↗ revision that introduced an identifiable variety." I reviewed the earliest versions of the article ↗ which is clearly in American English ("recognizing" not "recognising", "traveled" not "travelled", "airplane" not "aeroplane") so it seems to me that, given the inconsistency in the article as it stands, standardizing things to American English is appropriate. Obviously, open to your thoughts here but otherwise will re-implement. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Wikipedia:Simple Flying ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :Wikipedia:Simple Flying ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

<blockquote>This a page unilaterally created by a user that claims a source is not reliable. A clear consensus is required before proceeding with this.</blockquote>

Under the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Wikipedia%3ASimple+Flying|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here ↗.  '''Jetstreamer''' ''{{sup|Talk}}'' 12:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @Jetstreamer - I did create the essay but I don't believe a consensus is needed to do that given the consensus on Simple Flying. The essay tag in the header states: "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". In this case, the essay reflects the consensus reached on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ↗ regarding Simple Flying and just gives me/others an easy place to link for explanation. Looks like the tag was removed but I obviously have no objection if you feel anything in the essay does not represent the consensus or best practice want to collaborate on it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion ↗ of :Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines ↗

left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗ because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''The limited information in this article could be covered on the Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines pages.'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons ↗.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary ↗ or on the article's talk page ↗.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, the speedy deletion ↗ process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of :Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines ↗ 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/Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines ↗''' 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.</div> RickyCourtney (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:LiveJasmin''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute on Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community ↗

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

60px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} Alexfotios (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗''', a topic designated as '''contentious ↗'''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ↗, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic here ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }} Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

:Hah trust me when I say I have no interest in wading into this particular can of worms beyond answering RfCs. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:AT&T Corporation''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification re: post on AT&T Corporation Rfc

Avgeekamfot In your post on the Rfc being held on AT&T Corporation's ↗ talk page, you said you supported Option '''B '''(i.e.: AT&T Corporation's founding date should be listed as 1885). However, in the very same comment, you said the company traced its roots to 1877, the founding date called for in Option '''A'''. For purposes of determining how your vote should be counted in the Rfc, would you mind resolving this discrepancy on the talk page? Emiya1980 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of SimpleFlying sources

{{Uw-icon1}} Hello user Avgeekamfot, I recently noticed a sharp drop in the number of article using SimpleFlying ↗ as a source (around 30 to 50 less entries) and whilst I appreciate the work that you're doing regarding the removal of these SimpleFlying sources, I feel like it would be better if, instead of just simply removing SimpleFlying sources and adding a {{Cn}} tag (with the date missing), you tried to research for a reliable source to replace the SimpleFlying sources as it can make searching for replacement sources harder. And if in the end you can't manage to find a reliable replacement source, then you can add a {{Citation needed}} tag with the date included ''(see given links -->)''. You could also go to Wikipedia:Citation needed ↗, Template:Citation needed ↗ and also Wikipedia:Simple Flying ↗ for more information.

-Regards. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

:Hi there - I understand your position and agree that it's always ideal to find a replacement citation. However, given the scale of the spam site's usage, I feel my time is better spent removing them en masse which will hopefully prompt others to find higher quality replacement sources. Sometimes I might get interested and add a source, and once the backlog of the poor quality citations are removed, I aim to return to improving aviation articles but in the meantime, I feel that {{cn}} is an improvement over bad citations. For dating, understand that is the best practice but @AnomieBOT usually adds the dates after :) Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::On a related note, when you removed it from Gerrit Johannes Geysendorffer ↗ (my bad, I hadn't realized it was that unreliable), you only removed it from the list-defined references but not the call to it in the prose, so it left a citation error behind. Not a huge deal, and already fixed, just figured I'd point it out so you can avoid it next time you find it in an article with list-defined references. '''''AddWitty'''''''NameHere'' 23:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for pointing it out. This is my first experience with list-defined references. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah, they can be a little confusing at first, so no worries. (If you're familiar with named references and using them multiple times in an article, it's pretty much the same thing, though! Except instead of "full reference on one occurrence, then repeated simply by using the reference name for any other occurrences", it's "use the reference name throughout the prose, and the full reference goes in the reference section". Makes the source code more legible when editing, and once you know it's list-defined, it also makes finding "where is this named reference specified" much easier, so there's some nice benefits to it! Just at a slightly steeper learning curve because it's not the most common way things are done on-wiki, and iirc it doesn't play too nice with visual editor) '''''AddWitty'''''''NameHere'' 18:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::I'm sorry but you just cannot remove around 100 sources and add a {{citation needed}} tag without actually doing some sort of research.
::In this scenario, instead of just replacing every single SimpleFlying source with a {{citation needed}} tag, it would be preferable if you used the {{Bsn}} tag instead as at least, it gives a base and the number of pages using SimpleFlying pages is trackable. How else are we supposed to find these pages if all citations are removed?
::Quoting Template:Citation needed ↗:
::''"After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them."''
::''"While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by ↗" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all."'' Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi again @Aviationwikiflight: this exact subject was actually discussed in the most recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard ↗ about Simple Flying (linked from the WP:Simple Flying ↗ essay).
:::That discussion started because I had started removing Simple Flying citations and replacing them with {{cn}}. There were definitely some editors who agreed with your approach of using {{bsn}} but opinion was divided. I don't mind if you want to take it to the noticeboard again to see if there's a different consensus now but as I said then, I view Simple Flying as WP:CITESPAM ↗ and no citation is preferable to that. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:United States''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you (MacArthur Airport)

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback you provided me with on some of my edits on the page for MacArthur Airport (in your revision summary). I had no idea that Simple Flying is taboo for Wikipedia use (very glad to know this now). I can see how I could have been a bit too specific in certain parts of those edits, and I appreciate that you pointed that out, as I likely would not have realized otherwise.

I have added back some missing references (minus the Simple Flying one) and some of the major information (and fixes to typos & inaccurate information, as well as rectifications to some formatting issues) back – but nothing overly-descriptive (I heavily edited a bunch of the parts added back to make sure of it); I strongly opine that the few parts I added back are truly important to the article. And while I was at it, I removed some "fluffery", as well.

I apologize for my initial good faith errors – and once again: thank you for pointing them out to me and explaining them (I genuinely appreciate it).

Cheers, Infrastorian (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for your work on the article! Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at :Aegean Airlines ↗, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary ↗. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted ↗. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. ''Even though the Simple Flying refs should be removed, this doesn't excuse removal of other properly sourced content or restructuring of an article. Please be cautious with your edits. Anyway, I removed the SF reference myself, but it's something you should have done since you noticed.'' —Dimsar01 Talk ↗ ⌚→ 14:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

:My edit summary did provide a valid reason: you made edits adding information that was sourced to an unreliable source. Very standard to revert when improper content is added. WP:ONUS ↗ is on you to get edits right and not include unreliable sources when you introduce material to an article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
::You're missing the point here. The SF ref was backing one sentence (which was also backed by a second ref) out of many I transferred from the Greek wikipedia with other accepted sources. When you noticed the SF reference, what you should have done is:
# Check if the sentence is backed by another reference (which it was, with an official one)
# Then just remove the SF reference
# Leave me a message in my talk page letting me know why SF references should be avoided and why you removed that one (I honestly didn't know about it until your edit, given that WP:Simple Flying ↗ isn't an official WP policy or guideline).
::As I already said, nothing excuses removal of properly sourced content or reverting other unrelated edits. And also no, WP:ONUS ↗ is completely unrelated in this case, as the text I added was updating a section of the article which was last updated in 2014. And aside from that a consensus is required. You can't just remove sourced stuff without other editors' opinion, unless is obviously useless (which it wasn't in this case, you just didn't bother to read it). —Dimsar01 Talk ↗ ⌚→ 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:: {{Talk quote inline with quotes|Very standard to revert when improper content is added.}} And about that, no it is not, when an edit contains other text additions. You go and remove manually content in question. You revert only if the content in question is the only addition of the edit. See WP:FIXFIRST ↗, WP:REVONLY ↗, and WP:BABY ↗. —Dimsar01 Talk ↗ ⌚→ 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:UnitedHealth Group''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for review of a draft page (Dec 2024)

Hello! I'm working on a school project and I'm here to ask if you could review the draft page me and my team have written about Monte Zovetto (https://w.wiki/CJe6). It is a mountain in the Italian Prealps that was historically crucial during World War I and is now an historical site. We have a presentation coming up soon, and if you have got time we'd love to get your feedback. Thanks!
LIUCsmarties (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @LIUCsmarties - looks like someone else has reviewed the draft but it looks good to me. Nice work! For future reference, Articles for Creation reviews are supposed to be random so I would only review a specific article if it happened to pop up when I click Special:RandomInCategory/Pending AfC submissions ↗ or Special:RandomInCategory/AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago ↗. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the March 2024 AfD on lists of airline destinations ↗. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Further feedback request

Hello, you reviewed this article : Draft:Olaf Deutschmann ↗. Could you kindly assist me in ensuring it meets the required standards for approval? I have received and incorporated various feedbacks from reviewers and the help channel and I got the impression that the article was now ready for submission. The last submission was rejected similarly but I could not get any specific feedback from the reviewer or the help channel and was suggested to just submit again. But as it had not been approved again, I would really appreciate getting some help so I can make the required changes. Thank you ! Trialpedian (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of :Vasu Raja ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Vasu Raja ↗ 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/Vasu Raja ↗''' 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.</div> Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Zimpeto Olympic Pool

Hi, I left a question for you at Draft:Zimpeto Olympic Pool ↗, but maybe you didn't see that? An answer is appreciated. 95.98.65.177 ↗ (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I left a question for you at Draft:Zimpeto Olympic Pool ↗, but maybe you didn't see that? An answer is appreciated. 95.98.65.177 ↗ (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Filip Leu ↗

Hello, I have added the missing sources and adapted the article neutrally. Please check it again and, if necessary, add further points of criticism. Best regards Doc.Heintz (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I have eliminated all defects so far. Would you please move the article to the article namespace and delete the redirects. Thank you for your support.--Doc.Heintz (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Unstoppable domains

Hi there! Thanks for your review! I’m not sure I understand why you think the sources are unreliable, though? The article is mostly based on academic articles and articles in the green list of perennial sources. Would you please take another look? I understand the additional rules about blockchain/crypto pages but I’ve taken a lot of care to ensure that they align with expectations. Thanks! Viljowf (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I will leave an additional comment on the article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks very much! I'll take this on board and revise accordingly. Viljowf (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
::Hi A! I've noticed that you flagged the article as having promotional content. I don't quite understand what you mean, could you please highlight a few sentences that you find especially problematic? I have taken all of this from independent, reliable sources. Please note that the secion was entitled "Outreach and education" and another editor changed it to "Outreach and promotional activities", which I don't think is quite accurate. Viljowf (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:International_carpet_festival

Dear @Avgeekamfot, thank you for reviewing the current draft. After @JuniperChill reviewed the last time, 3 sources were added and the decision was left to someone else - in this case you. @JuniperChill said however that it could be a Wikipedia article.

I understand the issues with the sources. This is why I opened the discussion on the Article Draft Talk Page ↗. Again, the issue lies in the local media, which apparently does not make it outside Azerbaijan and therefore does not seem to be accepted by the broader Wikipedia rules. Which is something that makes things difficult for a small country. How could this be solved? What else could be done with the article? I guess the draft would then have to be deleted? Thank you for your help. AbeerT (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:JEL classification codes''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (trialing replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (talk|botop ↗) 16:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Torc edit

I took your comments into consideration. Thank you please review :) Pin0yi30y (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have a quick clarification question.

In the draft article, I’d like to include a minor note about a specific aircraft (ATR 42‑320, VP‑BNH) that was reportedly associated with West Caribbean Costa Rica in 2004.

The source is Scramble.nl, which is a user-contributed aviation registry. I understand this isn't a reliable source for proving notability or operations, but is it acceptable if I clearly mark it as an enthusiast fleet database, and use it only to mention construction number and aircraft registration?

I want to make sure this doesn’t compromise the quality of the article. Thanks in advance for any clarification!

Link:https://www.scramble.nl/database/civil/details/ATR_296

Thebaldball (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

:Usually we don't include an aircraft's unique identifier, just the number of a type in the fleet, so I wouldn't include this. Have you taken a look at WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-CONTENT ↗? Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
::Can i added planespotter for fleet? Thebaldball (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
:::No. It's on the list of unreliable sources. WP:PLANESPOTTERS ↗
:::If there aren't reliable sources writing about it, it's better not to include the fleet info instead of using unreliable sources. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Institute of Neuroinformatics

Are you serious? You guys just said before that there were too many primary sources. So I spent hours trying to find external sources that mention the institute. Now you're saying, the sources added make it seem like an advertisement? Please understand that there is NOT A LOT OF MATERIAL ABOUT THE INSITUTE ONLINE. If you don't believe that the Institute exists, or any of the history stated is false, I will gladly book you a ticket to Zurich, and you can come physically look at the Institute with your own eyes. Mkalcher (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Damon Vickers

Hi there @Avgeekamfot Thanks for your candid review. I'm trying to establish if there is anywhere to go from here, and would really appreciate your views on whether the three reviews I listed as the best three source (in fact, not the three you singled out) would contribute to the subject's notability. These are:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/books/the-day-after-the-dollar-crashes-by-damon-vickers-1.427983

Wendler, Nate (June 2011). "The Doomsday Scenarios". ''Registered Rep''.

Stern, Melanie; Crump, Richard (June 2011). "Behind the Numbers: The Four Authors of the Apocalypse". ''Financial Director''. p. 48.

The last two are available via Proquest, and each has a long discussion of the book.

P.S. My reasoning for including the RT page (no craftiness here, I just plugged the url into Wikipedia's citation maker), is not to suggest the views expressed are factually accurate, but that the book itself is discussed in a large public forum (even if that forum has a particular ideological slant). The same goes for the Beck show appearance.

My thinking is that these appearances and the coverage of the book contributes to this criterion from WP:AUTHOR:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)

Thanks in advance. Viljowf (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

:Possible that it is a WP:AUTHOR pass, but the article is still promotional. I would suggest first writing an article about the book to demonstrate it passes WP:NBOOK ↗ then rewriting the biography so it is not promotional. I would not include any references to Russian propaganda. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Apartheid Studies. You raise completely new issues that were not identified as problematic by previous editors

I noted your feedback on my draft. Thanks. Note that previous editors did not identify as problematic any of the new issues that you now raise (such as that the draft reads like an essay and contains opinions). Can you please be more specific about which parts or sections read like an essay and contain opinions? Which parts contain original research and which are not neutral? '''I'd really appreciate having this detail as I'll need it to effect any changes'''. Note that I had addressed previous editor's request for secondary reliable sources. Please indicate why you say that these sources I have added are not secondary or reliable. Alfred Beit (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

:Hi there, it's pretty common for reviewers to add issues they find as issues are corrected. In this case, I don't think the sources demonstrate the article's notability. As @MCE89 noted, none of the sources aside from those related to Nyasha Mboti discuss the topic like the draft does. As it stands now, it reads more like an essay about Mboti's work than a neutral encyclopedia article. I would say cut all but one mention of Mboti and show how the field is approached by other scholars including detractors. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the prompt and constructive response. Note that I addressed @MCE89's concerns by adding reliable secondary sources (see thread). Unfortunately, @MCE89 has not been back to confirm if, in his or her view, the edits are adequate. It would be helpful if editors were available to give feedback. I will revisit the draft and eliminate most of the references to Mboti. Note, however, that in all the other Wikipedia articles on founders of academic fields or subfields (see, for example, Derrida on "Deconstruction" [<nowiki/>Deconstruction - Wikipedia ↗] where in fact every single paragraph mentions the name Derrida), it is impossible not to name the founder. What do you suggest I do in this case? Alfred Beit (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::The biggest problem here is probably that the field and Mboti are not as established and it's not clear that they are notable, which is why @MCE89 and I both left the feedback that the references don't show the subject qualifies for an article. I'm not certain that a biography of Mboti would qualify either but, in any case, if the field is so closely related to Mboti then my thought would be that it should be covered as a section in his biography.
:::By the way, do you have any sort of affiliation/relationship with Mboti or the field of studies? It needs to be disclosed if so. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Rhewum - consider repeaded review

Hi Avgeekamfot! You have recently denied my draft. Following what you said I completely rewrote my article, changing the sources used, chaning the tone it was written in. As such, there is not a whole lot left of what you reviewed before.
Is there any chance you can give it a new lookover and give me feedback? Thx in advance Meike.schulz (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

:Hi there, this does appear to be significantly improved. Kudos. However, as it's not a topic I'm versed in, I'll let another reviewer tackle it now that the obvious promotional tone has been corrected. Avgeekamfot (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply, I'll see if I can find someone else. But angain I appreciate that you noticed the effort Meike.schulz (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Legal Impact for Chickens

Hi @Avgeekamfot, thanks for reviewing the draft I submitted for Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC). I would like to ask for feedback on where my understanding of notability differs, or if you could reconsider.

I understand this qualifies for notability, because:

# Want to help animals? Here’s where to donate your money. ↗ Vox - This is a reliable, independent, secondary source. I would think it is in depth enough too: the article lists the charities that have been selected by Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) as one of its recommended charities in 2024. As part of the listing three lines of detail describe LIC.
# Announcing Our 2023 Charity Recommendations ↗ ACE - This follows a similar pattern, announcing 6 charities as recommended in 2023, and is from the charity evaluator itself. This a secondary, independent, in depth source, which I believe to be reliable.
# Charity Review: Legal Impact for Chickens ↗ ACE - This is the actual report by ACE on LIC. This is independent and very in depth. I believe this is a reliable source, and because this is about LIC, it could be argued to be secondary - though I appreciate others may say this is original research too. Your thoughts are appreciated.
# The "Costco shareholder derivative suit" has been widely reported on. LIC is mentioned directly and as the representatives of the claiming shareholder, the filing of the suit and its allegations can be seen as LIC's and add to their notability. From what I can tell at least two sources are reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth when looked at it this way: The Independent ↗ and CBSNews ↗. Note there are at least another dozen such stories reported by other news agents.
# Crescent City-based farm company accused of animal cruelty sued by animal rights group ↗ Times Standard - This is certainly independent, secondary, and in-depth by mentioning LIC 3 times. I understand it to be reliable as well based on Ground news's ↗ assessment.

Any guided feedback is appreciated, cheers! Sklabb (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

:Oh in case the paywall of the Vox article is the issue, here are the relevant excerpts:
:"If you care about animals and want to reduce their suffering, but aren’t sure exactly how, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) is an organization that might be able to help.
:The California-based nonprofit puts out an annual guide for recommended animal charities, and it just released its list for this year."
:[...]
:"8) Legal Impact for Chickens: This group works to enforce laws against animal cruelty in the US, filing lawsuits for farmed animals and suing companies that violate commitments to animal welfare. The overall strategy is to make it a liability to treat animals cruelly on factory farms. The first lawsuit, in 2022, tackled Costco’s executives and the company’s treatment of chickens." Sklabb (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Vietnam Civil Aviation Flight 501 ↗

Please note this is now in main space despite your decline. The author created it in main space so I moved over the history as well. If you feel it is not suitably referenced, then please consider AfD. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for the note. Although the draft didn't demonstrate it, I suspect the subject is notable (the movie based on the incident also has its own article) so an AfD wouldn't be appropriate. Hopefully the author will continue improving its sourcing in main space. Avgeekamfot (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

":Wikipedia:DESTNOT ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DESTNOT&redirect=no Wikipedia:DESTNOT] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 7#Wikipedia:DESTNOT}}''' until a consensus is reached.  11WB (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:@Avgeekamfot, just wanted to highlight some issues I have with the original WP:DESTNOT ↗ close message. The closer was a non-administrator. This in itself is not usually an issue, however the RfC had ''a lot'' of !votes and was highly contentious. They also stated their own opinion in the closing message. I am not sure how this passed, but it did. They also worded it as '{{tq|the articles in question}}'. I find myself questioning the very RfC. It was open for over a month, yet was closed by a non-admin who stated their opinion in the close message and worded it to only include the two articles in question. It is frankly ridiculous! 11WB (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
::I don't disagree, the closure probably should have been reviewed. I'd argue that it should have properly reflected the discussion being about the type of list, but clearly that would be contentious as well. Your new RfC should help clear things up.
::It would probably be good practice to notify participants in the previous RfC of the new RfC, but I don't quite want to take the time to do that. If only there was a bot for that! Avgeekamfot (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I included a personal request on the opening message of this new RfC asking for an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC when it's due. This means neither @FOARP or @Stifle will be able to reasonably close it nor any non-administrator, which for the sake of the larger issue, I feel would only be a good thing (no disrespect to either admin, it is simply a highly contentious subject!). 11WB (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Also wanted to say, I apologise for what I said here ↗. At that moment, I was unaware of the much larger debate around destination lists. Whilst I am still iffy on redirects being created for discussions rather than essays and the like, it is helpful in that we don't need to copy and paste the lengthy talk page and section name when referring to it. 11WB (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think it's fairly common practice to create redirects for specific discussions that get referenced regularly but no hard feelings. I actually think most of these articles need a ton of cleanup and many should be deleted, I'm mostly opposed to claiming that they're prohibited even in cases where they are well written or clearly notable airlines who we could put together an article on. Avgeekamfot (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

RfC - Airport destination lists

Hi, for your information, as you were involved in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists ↗ or the RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT ↗ at WT:NOT ↗, I wanted to let you know that the discussed broader RfC has been opened at WP:VPP#RfC - The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles ↗. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. Many thanks! Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 21:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Changing the DESTNOT redirect target

Hi @Avgeekamfot. Just wanted to let you know that the recent DESTNOT broad or specific RfC has closed as no consensus ↗, meaning WP:DESTNOT ↗ now redirects to an outdated consensus. I am not going to update the redirect without first receiving your approval as the creator of the redirect however. It would be a good idea to update this soon, so that editors who cite DESTNOT aren't linking to a now-changed consensus. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

:Courtesy ping to @LokiTheLiar and @Danners430. 11WB (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::Might make sense to hold off until the current RfC closes, which is much broader in scope? Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 18:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I've lost the link to that one. 😵‍💫 11WB (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::::It's currently at WP:VPP ↗ Danners430 tweaks made ↗ 18:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! 11WB (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:Crisco''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗) 21:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard''' ↗ and '''Talk:Moroccanoil''' ↗ on "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comments. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗) 23:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:Polymarket''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 09:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

too many in-line external links .... in Compitese ↗

I've included many external links because I've always believed that external links enrich reading, giving the reader the opportunity, not the obligation, to expand their knowledge. But perhaps this opportunity isn't relevant. Aren't you interested in expanding your knowledge? Which ones should I remove? Those with references to the Italian Wikipedia?Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:There shouldn't normally be any in-line external links within the main text of Wikipedia articles. They can be added to an "External links" section but only if very relevant. Otherwise, just include as citations. See WP:EL ↗.
:To link to Italian Wikipedia articles, use Template:Interlanguage link ↗. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Formatting needs to be cleaned up ....in Compitese ↗ Your submission at Articles for creation: Compitese (February 19)

Compitese ↗ . Hi, I don't understand what it means and how can i do it, please get me any exemple.Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:Piki Films''' on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment ↗. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service ↗ subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> (replacing Yapperbot ↗) SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 12:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Moroccanoil

The RfC was flawed and partial, and you know it. Kindly restore the important information you deleted and start the process over. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 17:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

:I happen to agree with the closure that there is consensus against the controversy section. It was poorly sourced and not NPOV, potentially defamatory. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::If you agree, start the discussion over and voice your arguments. But that discussion did not meet any standards, so in the meantime you should restore the contents. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 18:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::We had a discussion. It was closed with a determination of consensus on this point. As I said before, I think you need to drop the stick ↗. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::::The whole point is that the discussion was not valid because it was partial and was started by a disruptive user. The stick in question is rotten. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 18:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative. I suggest you take it up with either the closer, @Guile's Theme, @Julian in LA, or the other participants if you want to change the consensus. However, I think the consensus on the controversy section is settled and the only part we may need to discuss again is how to handle the company's nationality. Avgeekamfot (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::There is nothing to handle about the company’s nationality. There are countless sources, both among cited on wiki as well as additional ones that can be easily found online, unequivocally referring to the company as Israeli. This is an indisputable fact. What needs to be reopened is the flawed discussion leading to the removal of important information. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 01:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::The RFC was closed, you never had a good argument in defence, poor sources, undue weight, not NPOV, and you attacked every user who did no agree with you accusing them of conspiracy. You contiune to say the RFC was 'partial' when given your own declared conflict of interest and conduct you seem the one most likely to be 'partial' here. There is arguably already grounds for you being taken to ANI given you have written the entire article on the indivudal you have a declared conflict of interest with which is essentially what a conflict of interest means you NOT do... And this facet of the article also seems paritcularly relevent to that same conflict of interest. You're only likely to draw attention to your conduct more broadly by failing to drop the WP:STICK ↗ here. Guile's Theme (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The process needs to be restarted because it was started in bad faith and you just went along with the disruptive user. I said it a million times and you still haven’t addressed that, but you ask me to drop the stick because apparently it bothers you that I’m still pointing out how utterly flawed the process was. It needs to be restarted and I’m going to find a way to restart it, whether you like it or not. Bringing up other articles is of no relevance. I created a balanced article that I wanted to be on Wikipedia, I’m not going to apologize for that when it’s not even the article in question here. Stay on topic. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 10:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::It does not need to be restarted but you are welcome to try whatever you wish. RFCs can be amended in progress and you never suggested how that should be done. What would be different about any new RFC that would change the result?
:::::::::I also did address it in the RFC; condemning vandalism while not agreeing to that which you wish to include are in no way mutually exclusive. Any wrong doing by the one who started the RFC is not relevant to the ultimate result of that RFC. I ask you to drop the stick because no one appears to have agreed with you and you just accuse everyone who doesn't of conspiracy or wrong doing without providing well sourced or substantiated arguments. These aren't just 'other articles' I'm bringing up either; it is an article you created in contravention of your declared conflict of interest which also seems particularly relevant to the facet of this article you are so energetically defending.
:::::::::{{ font color | green | I created a balanced article }}
:::::::::The term 'cultural appropatiation' isn't even actually said in either of the sources you gave, one of which is entirely improper as it is based on a political activist source. You can't create a balance article while using sources that themselves are based on a political activist sources like the CJPME. As far as I can tell, based on your stated conflict of interest and visceral attachment to this particular facet of the article, you created this article solely with the intention of inflating this controversy as part of a broader agenda. Don't know how much longer I'm going to humor you before taking you to ANI. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::You once again mixed two different things up. I don't even know what to say any more other than read again what I wrote above. Regards. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 15:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::There is no mixing up or re-reading required. There is a pattern of behavior you are exhibiting where you disregard wiki policy in pursuit of an agenda related to your stated conflict of interest. Having your biases is fine. Pushing them too far into violating wiki policy and thus bad faith is not. If you actually want to help your cause in my opinion you'd best do so by not dying on this particular hill metaphorically speaking. Guile's Theme (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, you mixed up when I was referring to Moroccanoil with when I was referring to Souzan Fatayer. All because you had to bring up an unrelated article. Bye. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 16:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I am referring to both of those when I speak about, "a pattern of behavior you are exhibiting where you disregard wiki policy in pursuit of an agenda related to your stated conflict of interest." Bye Bye? Guile's Theme (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Jesus, the bludgeoning here. @Guile's Theme might be right that taking this to ANI or arbitration enforcement may be the next step but in any case, let's take this convo away from my talk page. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, sorry about that. Didn’t think someone else would jump in to fight me. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 19:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
:Never mind, just noticed you disrupted the lead again. You can’t state it is multinational and Israeli shortly afterwards. It’s now evident it’s a lost battle with y’all. ~ '''IvanScrooge98''' (talk ↗) 19:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Madelyn Wils

Hello,

Thank you for editing my draft article Draft:Madelyn Wils ↗, which you declined on 20 March 2025.

I am confused why it was declined and would greatly appreciate your help in bringing it up to your standard, or would like to ask you to reconsider your decline. I am new to Wikipedia and would like to do the best job possible.

As far as I understand it, the article was declined for two reasons.

1) Inline citations. I was careful to cite the relevant information. I have 40 distinct inline citations. Is there a particular area of the article that needs improvement?

2) As for notability, I understand that reviewers typically look for 3 sources that have significant coverage, are independent of the subject, and are reliable, to satisfy the general notability guideline. I have satisfied this condition with numerous sources including from: The New York Times, The Tribeca Citizen, The New York Observer, Variety, and The Village Sun.

I spoke to TenshiHinanawi on the live help chat to try to understand how to improve the article. They felt that the article should not have been declined and explained to me that editors don't unilaterally undecline articles unless it's unambiguously vandalism. They suggested that I ask you to reconsider your decline on your talk page.

Thank you so much for your help in improving and publishing this article. I look forward to your reply. Silvia Steorra (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

:You have a declared conflict of interest with Madlyn. You should not be creating the article on her per the basic of COI on wikipedia, ie, "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead."

:If she was so notable as to merit an article why is the only one who wants to create an article on her an editor with no edit history and a conflict of interest? That you have come to wikipedia apparently only to create an article on an individual which you have a conflict of interest with reeks of impropriety. Guile's Theme (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
::Because no one else has done so? There's no reason to speak to another editor like that, irregardless of whether they have a COI or not. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Speak to them like what? Or do you mean just pointing out truths? It seems awfully coincidental that the person who wants to create an article is a personal relation with a COI as opposed to them actually being notable enough to merit said article. If Madlyn is so notable I'm sure someone else without a personal relation or conflict of interest would come along and make the article at some point. If no one but someone with a conflict of interest would want to make the article I would say that is a good indication they are in fact not so notable. Also note per WP:SPA ↗, "Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "'''single purpose accounts''' and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." Their account is apparently created only with the intention of creating the article on their conflict of interest.
:::Furthermore, per WP:BIO ↗, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." Frankly nothing about Madlyn seems truly remarkable, interesting, or noteworthy and the individuals who were a CEO or founded a highschool who don't have a wikipedia article because they don't merit one are likely to be legion.Guile's Theme (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Accusing them of impropriety on the basis that they're a COI editor is inappropriate, and can be considered casting aspersions ↗. I ask you to strike that statement. On your point of being an SPA, it's not a blockable offense on it's own, being disruptive and violating policies is, which they haven't done so. You've quoted the lead of WP:NBIO ↗ but not WP:NBASIC ↗ or WP:ANYBIO ↗, which is what is used for evaluating notability. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::'''It is''' inapprpopiate for COI single purpose account to create/write the article on their COI per wiki policy. Who they have admitted elsewhere is a 'family friend'. As far as I can see rather than casting Aspersions I'm stating facts. Wiki policy essenitally says they are not to write articles directly; creating an article is arguably a step above writing one directly. I do not see how this is defensible. Wikipedia isn't where people go to make articles about their family or friends. If the person was so notable as to merit an article it seems awfully coincidental it happens to be a personal relation who wants to make one. Guile's Theme (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::You do realise that such editors are directed to make drafts via AfC per WP:COIEDIT ↗? In any case, you're welcome to argue that COI editors should be prohibited from making drafts and submitting them for review at WT:Conflict of interest ↗. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for your reply. I am new to wikipedia. I did not realize I was not allowed to create an article on someone I knew. I worked very hard to write with a neutral point of view and provide reliable sources to show her notability, as well as declare the COI. I apologize if I did not do this correctly. I thought I was doing this correctly by using the Wikipedia Article Wizard to create a draft in my Sandbox and submitting it for review by an independent, volunteer editor. I did not edit the article directly as far as I understand the process. It's possible I didn't do this correctly, as I find the process a bit confusing.
::I saw her name in a Wikipedia article about Millennium High School (Millennium High School (New York City) ↗
::"History: Millennium High School was founded in 2002. '''Madelyn Wils''', as chair of Manhattan Community Board 1, led an effort raising $16 million to build the school and coordinated planning and site construction. "
::I was surprised she did not have her own wikipedia page, given her work in making that school happen, and also with the Hudson River Park, post-911, Tribeca Film Institute, and now Fifth Avenue redevelopment.
::Thank you for helping me to understand how to make this article better and acceptable for wikipedia standards so that it can be published. I appreciate it! Let me know what next steps should be. Silvia Steorra (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
:::To clarify, you are not prohibited from creating an article to which you have a conflict of interest, however as Guile's Theme quoted above, it is strongly discouraged from editing mainspace articles. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you for clarifying. Is submitting it for publication from my sandbox considered editing the mainspace article? Or the idea is that once it is published, I do not go back in and make edits? Silvia Steorra (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Mainspace is usually any page without a namespace prefix (Draft:, Wikipedia:, etc.). COI editors are expected to not edit the article directly, rather to make edit requests on the talk page ↗. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::ok thank you. I will wait for @Avgeekamfot to let me know if they will consider undeclining my draft article or what they would suggest that I fix before submitting it again. I appreciate all the help! Silvia Steorra (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
:Hi, you're welcome to re-submit this. Maybe another reviewer will see things differently. My concern is that despite having plenty of sources, the ones that looked promising and I reviewed were passing coverage. There were also a few claims that didn't have an inline citation which is not allowed for new BLPs. Avgeekamfot (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Siveej Kodapully Sivaraman

Thank you for reviewing my draft earlier. I have revised the article to better align with the citation and general notability guidelines. I would appreciate another review of the updated draft and any further feedback. Thank you for your time and assistance. Indirakonthuruthy (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Pair Finance

Hi Avgeekamfot, thank you for reviewing Draft:Pair Finance ↗. I saw that you declined the draft due to insufficient sourcing, and I would be grateful for any guidance on what exactly is still missing.

I tried to address previous feedback by making the three strongest sources more prominent, both in the draft and in the AfC comment. From my understanding, the best sources Handelsblatt ↗, Puls Biznesu ↗, and NZZ ↗ appear to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary under WP:NCORP ↗.

For context, Handelsblatt ↗, NZZ ↗, and Puls Biznesu ↗ are established business/news publications in their respective countries, and the cited pieces appear to provide substantial coverage rather than passing mentions. Since the sources are in German and Polish and some are partially paywalled, I may not have made their relevance clear enough in the draft or AfC comment.

Could you let me know whether you think these sources do not meet WP:NCORP ↗, or whether the issue is with how they are used in the draft? Any specific pointers would be very helpful so I can improve the draft before resubmitting.

Thank you for your time and help. Denise at PAIR Finance (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Updated sources and resubmission request

Hi @Avgeekamfot, and thank you for reviewing this Draft:Thích Trung Hiếu ↗.
I have added additional independent secondary sources, including an academic publication from the Journal of Buddhist Studies, to better address the notability concerns raised in the previous review.
I would be grateful if the draft could be reconsidered when convenient. Thank you again for your time and guidance. Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar enough with the Journal of Buddhist Studies or the subject to be do a good analysis here so I'll let a reviewer with more expertise take this on. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Damir Janigro ↗

Hi. Thank you for reviewing my draft. Janigro meets criteria 1 of WP:PROF ↗. His work has over 15,000 citations and he has an h-index of 71 according to Scopus ↗. Also, according to Google Scholar ↗, he has 16 papers with over 280 citations where he is the first or the last author on the study. Can you please take a look at it again? HRShami (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi. In case you are still not convinced about the notability of the subject, would it be okay if I resubmit the draft as is for another reviewer to take a look? HRShami (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Fundação Casa de Jorge Amado ↗

Hello, Avgeekamfot how are you? Thank you for reading the article about the Jorge Amado House Foundation. What suggestions do you have for improving the article? There is a range of information, such as the archive’s purpose, its holdings, recent renovations... I also want to clarify that no AI was used either in the translation or in the creation of the Portuguese article (which was written before generative models existed, and most of the text is still pre-AI). Thanks for the feedback! Happy editing Mtvdanilo (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

:I saw the em dashes ↗ and assumed LLM but could be wrong. Saw your COI but seems like your COI is not the usual person paid to make edits for promotion? I still think there's too much focus on things like mission ↗ and language like "boasts" and other positive adjectives. Also, since the sources are not in English, would suggest listing WP:THREE ↗ before resubmitting since the sources I looked at did not seem to contribute. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hello, Avgeekamfot. I’ve made a few changes. Among the sources are a number of mainstream media outlets: Folha de S. Paulo ↗, G1 ↗, Agência Brasil ↗, O Globo ↗, and university publications: UFBA ↗, UFPA ↗, UERJ ↗. I removed very Brazil-specific references such as “the symbols of EXU and their importance to Jorge Amado” and references to places where literature produced by the institute has become part of college entrance exams in Brazil.
::In my own research, I addressed the reforms of 2024, the impact of the pandemic, and the issue of “In Popular Culture” in the song by Gil and Caetano. Mtvdanilo (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I see you have resubmitted. Another reviewer will take a look. I suggest adding WP:THREE ↗ as a comment there, but that's up to you. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Turkey at the 1967 Mediterranean Games

Which unreliable sources are you referring to? Which unreliable sources are you referring to? The Turkish National Olympic Committee??? The Turkish National Olympic Committee in this sources all written. I doubt you’ve actually looked at the sources. If you check the pages for other countries from the same year, you’ll see that the Turkey page is in much better shape. For examle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia_at_the_1963_Mediterranean_Games ↗ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy_at_the_1967_Mediterranean_Games ↗ Pehlivanmeydani (talk) Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

:Medal table lacked citations. Given the year, I assume that some of the athletes are BLP meaning we must have an inline citation for any claim about them. Avgeekamfot (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
::https://olimpiyat.org.tr/Oyun-Detay/napoli-1963-akdeniz-oyunlari/66 SONUÇLAR - All medalist written there. And here also all written: https://web.archive.org/web/20140624045926/http://www.cijm.org.gr/images/stories/pdf/JM1963.pdf Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline of Draft:Stelios Bekiros — substantive rebuttal and request for retraction or criterion-level justification

Avgeekamfot,

This is a formal response to your 09 June 2026 decline of Draft:Stelios
Bekiros, stamped at 11:06 UTC, twenty-one hours after submission, on the
canned-template grounds of "prof" and "resume". Neither stamped reason
survives examination against the references already present in the draft at
the time of your action, nor against the live editorial standards under which
biographies of academics are presently kept on this encyclopaedia. I require
either a criterion-level justification of each stamped reason or a retraction
of the decline. Bare reassertion of the template text will not be treated as
a response.

1. The stamped reason "prof" is not substantiated by the draft

The subject demonstrably satisfies WP:NPROF ↗ on four independent criteria,
each supported by sources already cited in the draft you reviewed:

'''C1 — Highly cited research.''' h-index 66, i10-index 217, more than

16,000 citations on Google Scholar ↗
(profile ↗).
Stanford / Elsevier "World's Top 2% Scientists" for six consecutive years
(2020–2025). These figures sit an order of magnitude above the thresholds
routinely accepted at AfC under C1 for the economics, econometrics, finance
and computer-science disciplines. Citation counts of this magnitude are
not borderline cases.

'''C3 — Highly prestigious academic awards / fellowships.''' Three Marie

Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships of the European Commission (2011,
2013, 2015) and one Max Weber Fellowship of the European University
Institute ↗ (2008–2009). The Marie Curie IF and the Max Weber Programme
are the two most selective postdoctoral fellowships in the European
research-funding ecosystem, with acceptance rates below 8% and 4%
respectively. Holding all four is, by published programme statistics, in
the order of one in ten thousand. Additionally, four Italian National
Scientific Habilitations (ASN-MIUR ↗) at ''Prima Fascia'' (Full
Professor) level, certified by the Italian Ministry of University and
Research in February 2025.

'''C5 — Named / distinguished chair.''' Chair Full Professor of Artificial

Intelligence, Data Science and Econometrics, University of Turin ↗,
since February 2023. Previously Joint Chair Full Professor of FinTech,
Econometrics and Data Science, University of Malta ↗ / University of
Turin (2021–2024). Elected Full Professor of Economic Statistics
("Professore Ordinario"), University of Padua ↗ (2019). Three concurrent
or sequential full-professorial appointments at three Italian state
universities meet C5 unambiguously.

'''C8 — Editor-in-Chief of major established academic journals.'''

Inaugurate Distinguished Editorial Member of ''Reviews of Economic''
Literature ''(REL), the first new journal launched by Stanford''
University Press ↗ in a century. Editor-in-Chief of ''AI Insights'', of
''Economics — Innovative and Economic Research Journal'' (De Gruyter ↗),
of the ''Journal of Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies'', of
the ''Journal of FinTech and Financial Engineering'', and of the ''IECE''
Transactions on Computational Intelligence and Data Science''.''
Associate / Academic Editor on more than twenty further international
journals including ''PLOS ONE ↗'', ''Chaos, Solitons & Fractals ↗''
(Elsevier), ''Risk Analysis ↗'' (Wiley) and the
INFORMS ↗ ''Journal on Applied Analytics''.

These four independent grounds for notability under WP:NPROF were in the
draft at the time of your review. The decline template does not address
them. I require you to state, for the record, which of these four bullet
points you considered, what evidence you weighed against each, and on what
basis you concluded that none satisfies the corresponding NPROF clause. A
general restatement of "the references do not show that the subject meets
the criteria" is not responsive: WP:NPROF C1 is a numeric threshold, C3 is
a named-fellowships test, C5 is a job-title test, and C8 is a journal-role
test, and the evidence above is specific to each.

2. The stamped reason "resume" is not substantiated by current editorial standards

The "reads like a resume" finding does not survive comparison with the
present, long-standing, well-watched biographies of accepted academics on
the English Wikipedia. The draft is materially less list-dense than each of
the following seven articles, all currently in main-space, none tagged for
cleanup on this basis, and all concerning subjects of comparable or greater
scholarly stature within or adjacent to the subject's fields:

; Nobel and Turing laureates

'''Daron Acemoglu ↗''' — 2024 Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences.

Awards / Honors formatted as bullet lists (eight economics awards, nine
honorary degrees, plus state orders). Article structurally list-heavy
across infobox, awards, bibliography, multiple section breakdowns and
categories. Accepted in this form.

'''Lars Peter Hansen ↗''' — 2013 Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences.

Selected writings formatted as a ten-item bullet list; External links as
seven bullets; Further reading as five bullets. Accepted in this form.

'''Yoshua Bengio ↗''' — 2018 Turing Award. Substantial bulleted

Publications section and multi-field list infobox, including an Awards
field enumerating six named distinctions. Accepted in this form.

'''Yann LeCun ↗''' — 2018 Turing Award. Article structurally list-heavy

with infobox Awards field as a six-item bullet list, multiple list-style
career and education entries. Accepted in this form.

'''Stephen Hawking ↗''' — Publications section organised as five

consecutive subsections of pure bullet lists (Popular books, Co-authored,
Forewords, Children's fiction, Films and series) totalling approximately
forty bullet items. Awards and honours enumerates more than a dozen named
distinctions in sentence-list form. Accepted in this form.

; Direct-domain peers in econometrics and complex systems

'''Eric Ghysels ↗''' — econometrician, University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill. Honors and awards section formatted as a twelve-item bullet
list. Multiple enumerated editorial roles in prose. Accepted in this form.

'''Didier Sornette ↗''' — ETH Zürich, complex-systems / catastrophe-risk

research (the subject's own domain, in which the Global Apocalypse Index
and APOCALYPSE Research Foundation operate). Article explicitly
list-heavy with multiple bullet lists, a seven-item bulleted Books
section, and numbered lists within the research-programme sections.
Accepted in this form.

If the bibliographies and award enumerations of two sitting Nobel laureates
in Economic Sciences, two Turing Award laureates, the most cited cosmologist
of the twentieth century, a leading living econometrician in the subject's
own field, and a leading living complex-systems and catastrophe-risk
researcher in the subject's own domain are accepted in those forms on this
encyclopaedia, then a less list-dense biography of a Chair Full Professor
with h-index 66, three Marie Curie Fellowships, a Max Weber Fellowship and
Editor-in-Chief roles at multiple international journals cannot consistently
be declined under "resume" without the reviewer specifying which passages
of the present draft exceed the editorial norm those seven articles
establish. I require that identification, by section and by paragraph.

I will concede, separately and without prejudice to the above, that the
Career, Editorial positions, Expert evaluator and EU-projects sections of
the draft can be tightened in any resubmission. That is editorial polish
and it is mine to deliver. It is not, however, grounds for a canned
WP:NOTRESUME decline when measurably more list-dense sections are standard
practice in accepted biographies of academics, including in the subject's
own discipline (Ghysels) and domain (Sornette).

3. The review record

For the record:

Submission timestamp: 08 June 2026, 15:10 UTC.

Decline timestamp: 09 June 2026, 11:06 UTC.

Elapsed: twenty-one hours.

Stamped reasons: "prof" and "resume", template defaults, no free-text

comment, no policy shortcut cited by the reviewer, no reference-level
analysis disclosed.

Conflict of interest: declared in advance on

User:Sbekiros-research using the {{tl|Connected contributor}}
template and disclosed in the draft itself, precisely so that an
uninvolved reviewer would examine the references on their merits rather
than the identity of the author.

The combination of an elapsed time of twenty-one hours, two default
stamped reasons, the absence of any reference-level commentary in the
decline template, and the demonstrable fact that four independent NPROF
criteria are each supported by sources already in the draft, is not
consistent with a reference-by-reference review having occurred. I am not
asserting motive, and I make no claim about it. I am asserting that the
decline record, as it stands, does not document that the cited evidence was
actually weighed against the policy clauses to which it is responsive. I
require that it now be so weighed, on the record, here.

4. What I require, and the escalation path

I require, within seventy-two hours of this message:

(a) a criterion-level statement of why, in your reading, each of the four
bullet points in section 1 above fails the corresponding WP:NPROF clause
(C1, C3, C5, C8); and

(b) a paragraph-level statement of which specific passages of the draft, on
your reading, exceed the editorial norm established by the seven
comparator articles in section 2 above; or

(c) a retraction of the decline.

If none of (a), (b), or (c) is provided within seventy-two hours of the
timestamp of this message, I will, in order:

raise this matter at the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Help desk ↗;

raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Biographies ↗;

request a second AfC reviewer's opinion at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation ↗;

if necessary, request community review at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ of the question
whether a canned twenty-one-hour decline of an academic biography on
default "prof" and "resume" grounds, in the presence of unrebutted
evidence of WP:NPROF C1, C3, C5 and C8 compliance, is consistent with
the documented expectations of AfC reviewers.

Each of those venues is the documented and policy-supported escalation
path for AfC declines of this kind. I would prefer not to use them, and a
substantive reply from you here would obviate them. The choice is yours.

Sbekiros-research (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

:You're welcome to raise this at whatever noticeboard you would like, or request another AfC review to see if another reviewer accepts the draft. But to be clear, I'm a volunteer and you can't "require" me to do anything. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Sateco - revised submission

Hello Avgeekamfot,

I hope you are well. Thank you so much for reviewing Draft:Sateco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sateco). I really appreciate the feedback and have done my best to address it. I have also taken inspiration from existing Wikipedia pages like https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquardt-Group and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preh and would appreciate your guidance.

Since your first review, I have made the following changes:

1. Removed promotional language throughout (e.g. "world's leading", "specialist in sensory experiences")

2. Removed the product innovation list, which had no independent sources

3. Added independent references from Philippine Daily Inquirer, BusinessWorld Online, Manila Bulletin, Rubber World, Electropages, MQ Management und Qualität, and Switzerland Global Enterprise

4. Restructured the corporate section with a neutral locations table and key personnel table

5. Removed all self-referential claims without third-party sources

I understand that the article still did not meet Wikipedia's standards, and I would be very grateful if you could point me to the specific passages that still seem promotional, or let me know which sources you consider unreliable. Any guidance would be helpful so I can make the right improvements.

Thank you again for your time and effort and kindest regards,

Looking forward to your feedback!

Sandrasian Sandrasian (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Updates about Draft:Bamougoum Museum

Hello @Avgeekamfot
I hope you're well.
I'm writing you for Draft:Bamougoum Museum ↗
I'm a Wikipedia trainer on Wiki-N'zundeuh. The project allows translations into various language.
The contributors who manage this task know english language and received a training on how to wikificate an article.
There isn't AI behind their works since they just make translation french to english.
This would certainly be the time to indicate that several other articles are being proposed for revision and others will arrive in the coming days.
I'm available for more guidance about this task.
Looking forward to your feedback! Bile rene (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:If the other articles are of similar quality, then they will probably be declined. The quality of writing and sources are poor. In the article I reviewed, the sources consist of the museum itself, a tourism body (not independent), Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR ↗), an ISSN identifier which does not identify a specific article or even page (!), and a PhD thesis word doc. None of these are reliable sources or show notability. Avgeekamfot (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

my a350 ulr new article

yo thanks for this, my previous submit just said corporate slop. thx so much for all the detail WGRN (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)