User talk:SafariScribe: Difference between revisions

SafariScribe is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. They may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict. They may also respond to talk page or email messages more slowly than usual, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

The world was created for all.

No one is perfect even AI’s do mis fault. Stay cool, just alert me and I will see it off!

If you are here just to castigated me (I know there shouldn’t be “d”, so it’s a mistake; fix it yourself), please don’t come here. Find anywhere in your talk page, then ping me for opinion. Welcome to my talk page, and ask questions as you will answer when it’s thrown to you. I have no other account and have never edited for any payment whatsoever.

Hi SafariScribe. Thank you for your work on Stephen Ezeanya. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it is not yet ready for main space. Please establish notability as per WP:BIO. I will be moving it draft space. Please feel free to republish once it meets the above criteria. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei, I have reverted your draftification. That was a very wrong move, you made. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe – I am not a subject expert. However, you currently have two sources, and I don’t see how either of them establishes notability. Of course, if I made a mistake or I missed something, I would appreciate if you could WP:AGF and discuss the issue at hand with me directly before jumping to complaining to others. Mariamnei (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei, don’t tag me on my talk page pls, I must get the notification without that. First, if you aren’t a subject expert, please don’t attempt the article on presumption because we review articles here on the possibility of “will it pass when subjected to WP:AFD?”, if you have doubts, then tag it and never draftify especially when it was written by an experienced editor; almost all the articles on Wikipedia started as a stub with one or two sources until expansion as days get by; same is applicable here: it’s better to tag and article as “not notable” or “needs more sources for verification” than dratifying them. On the other hand, Asilvering is an admin I respect so much and she knows the best way to convey these messages to you. I may be advocating for the revocation of your NPP right because I want the best for you. It’s not a matter of rushing, you could always get the tool when you are ready to use them well. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have received complaints that I should have draftified articles that I approved and the opposite direction as well. I have reviewed hundreds (if not thousands) of articles in the last couple months; I have received a small number of complaints and been thanked by many users for constructive behavior.

I am not convinced that the article in question would pass in an WP:AFD and I certainly think it is borderline. WP:42 says that there need be multiple sources discussing the subject, and I do not see that here. If you disagree with me, this is a simple content dispute, and I believe that you should have assumed good faith and discussed it with me rather than casting aspersions and immediately writing to an admin saying that I am a terrible reviewer. This is also not reflective of the vast majority of reviews I have done, and I am still learning and open to hearing feedback and improving. 12:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC) Mariamnei (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t be ignorant, there is always room for improvements. No one casted aspersions on you and if you accuse me for that, I will take it as lack of WP:CIVILITY. Why won’t you just calm down and read again the NPP standards or perhaps the general notability guidelines as well as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and see why it’s important NPP reviewers should know this. I can never condemn your good works here; I must confess you are one of the best contributing NPPers herein, however mistakes does happen and no one, expect God is the master of perfection. How could you tell me that the Archbishop of an Archdiocese would fail an AFD? have you read WP:NBISHOP?

My dear, when this type of complaint gets to you, there are few things to do: read it, breathe, tell the complainant that you could do better and that it’s just a mistake, refresh your memory on the guidelines especially on notability (because you need to be sending some articles to AFD at some point), and come out better. These are little things but being faithful to them will keep you going. Devo dire ancora che stai facendo molto molto bene qui. Gli errori spesso succede ma non mostra che sei male; non é va bene così. Fai il tuo migliore e lascia l’altre cose per Dio, okay. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference to WP:NBISHOP; you have now showed me in policy where I erred. I was looking for something of that sort in the notability guidelines, but it does not seem to be linked to the general notability page. I will review the NPP standards again. Have a wonderful day! Mariamnei (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ednabrenze (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support in November! – On St. Cecilia’s Day – patron saint of music – I remember a composition by Benjamin Britten, and have a woman on the main page who illustrated songs, with a sense of humour. My places take you to Milan, my first visit to La Scala, and music features our latest choral Abendlob, with English music. — Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Gerda Arendt. Wait, of you’ve been to La Scala, do you speak Italian? (Funnily asking). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abuse of Process and Trolling at AfC/RM/TR – Draft:Houshmand Dehghan. Shatootesabz (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Regarding the draft ‘Houshmand Dehghan,’ please specify exactly which claim or which section of the article lacks sufficient or reliable sourcing. This article contains academic sources, such as Handal (2021) and Lambden (UC Merced), that have analyzed and cited his work.”Shatootesabz (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“I have requested the speedy deletion of the Houshmand Dehghan page. Please delete it. I hate Wiki.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatootesabz (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you very much for reviewing my article. I hope you’re doing well today.

You said that the article fails WP:NAWARDS, but that is an essay page, not a guideline page. Essay pages are just opinion pieces, not Wikipedia guideline pages. It does have 3 sources that you can read, and it also has another source that does exist, but that I haven’t found a link to yet. Also, could you be more specific on what part of WP:NAWARDS you think it fails? Let me know if you need help translating.

Thank you for your time and effort on my article. Orlando Davis (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I appreciate you reaching out to me for clarification. May I beg to reply you later after my classes today, maybe in the afternoon. Please. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thank you for responding. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you did on my Prince Alexander Literary Prize article. Have a great day! Orlando Davis (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you too, @Orlando Davis! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SafariScribe, I’ve been working on Draft:South Park Commons that your reviewed and declined. I sought advice from an experienced AfC reviewer (Qcne) regarding the strongest sources for notability (see User_talk:Qcne#Thanks_for_guidance!).

Based on that discussion, I presented strong case citing fully focused New York Times, TechCrunch, and Business Standard articles, which we both believe establish GNG. Could you please take another look? Thanks! —Saphelion (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there. Thank you! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SafariScribe. You rejected my Articles for Creation submission at Draft:Kris Sidial on the basis that Sidial does not meet the notability requirements. The article relies heavily on citations to Bloomberg and Business Insider. I figured both publications have a “broad audience”, he is the primary subject of each article, and both are profile pieces, not routine announcements or churnalism. I know you probably review a lot of these and get plenty of complaints from people that get their articles rejected. However, I’d be in your debt if you could teach me what I’m missing about the criteria and these two articles. Mperry1512 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Mperry1512. I also approve theses two sources but they aren’t enough to determine notability, see WP:THREE. Other sources in the draft fails our reliable sources criteria, hence my decline. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to ask you about the notability aspect of the reason for declining Draft:Harry Potter (pinball). I thought the Pinball News references taken as a whole, including [1] count as one, and RePlay magazine would count for another (it is also published in printed form in the August issue), and the review at [2] might count as a third?

The other issue of what I might need to remove from the article due to being unsufficiently sourced is obviously a bit of a moot point until notability is established. Wilbers (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilbers, Pinball News is not reliable because it is a blog written by one person. I also don’t know the reliability of Replay magazine but let me trust the team. In this case, we need sources that are reliable and a good example of the subject’s significant coverage.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Punchball mag is also [ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pinball News is a lot more than that, although the editor is also effectively head writer. It does say on that about page “Finally, you may have noticed how the ‘I’ from the first few paragraphs has turned into a ‘we’.  That’s because Pinball News is not my site.  It is the collaborative work of all the dozens of writers who have contributed or continue to write for us.  Sure, I edit the site and write some of it, but the writing stays fresh thanks to the variety of voices and opinions found in our articles.”

For example, [3] is definitely written by someone else, with editorial oversight. Wilbers (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilbers, you edit on Pinball News, sorry? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was just using that as an example of an article on the site written by somebody else. I also noticed that in Pinball Magazine 2 (2013) there is a 6 page interview with the editor of that website (Martin Ayub). Given in that he says helping reporting for BBC news is his job I’ve had a search for something online saying that, and I’ve come across this [4] , especially the three minutes following 3:40 where he talks about journalistic standards and bias which lends credance to Pinball News being a reliable source. Wilbers (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you just declined my draft on the Battle of Nawanpind during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war.

Here’s the link to the draft – Draft:Battle of Nawanpind#Battle of Nawanpind

1. I wanted to understand why was this draft declined.
2. Since you had mentioned references, I would like to add that the battle in question hasn’t been covered well and therefore does not specific mentions anywhere else (which is why I sought to create the wikipedia page).
3. The references I do mention are either news articles (by highly reputed newspapers/media organisations) or books that have unfortunately not been digitised (yet).
4. I would love to add more references but the particular war in question (the 1971 India-Pakistani war) was 13 days long and thus, most of the coverage/papers on it focus on its offensive and not defensive battle (which is what the Battle of Nawanpind was).
5. Moreover, Wikipedia already has a mention of the battle in another page linked here (it is the page about one of the units that participated in the battle) – 173 Medium Regiment (India).

Asc9924 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Asc9924 for the write up above. I have a few question: does any of the sources, i.e books referred it as “Battle of Nawanpind”? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the reply. As far as the name is concerned, the battle of is called either “Engagement at Nawanpind” or “Battle of Nawanpind” in most of the primary sources (i.e., sources by the Indian Armed Forces and the Government of India) like wartime citations which are published in The Gazette of India, an official communique of the Government of India. The citations I have added in the draft are also from Gazette. Asc9924 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you do think it is necessary to add the Gazette as a source, I’d be happy to do so. Asc9924 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if that is the most appropriate source that defines the war, then add them, trim the draft and remove unnecessary informations except ones said by the source (s). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SafariScribe,
Thank you for reviewing my recent submissions. I’d like to respectfully request clarification on two rejections where I believe the sourcing demonstrates significant coverage beyond passing mentions, as required by WP:GNG.

”Marc E. Polymeropoulos’

The draft included sources that provide substantial, in-depth coverage of Polymeropoulos as the primary subject:

GQ Magazine (October 2020): Feature-length profile by Julia Ioffe specifically about Polymeropoulos and his Havana Syndrome experience – not a passing mention, but a multi-thousand-word investigative feature with him as the central subject

NBC News (Ken Dilanian, December 2020): Extended profile piece titled “CIA officer suffered crippling symptoms in Moscow. Was it ‘Havana Syndrome’?” – again, Polymeropoulos is the primary subject

CBS News (Catherine Herridge, June 2021): Television interview and profile piece with Polymeropoulos as the featured subject

NPR (Greg Myre, October 2020): Profile piece where Polymeropoulos is the primary subject, not merely mentioned

CIA Studies in Intelligence (December 2021): Book review of his HarperCollins-published book These are not passing mentions but substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources where Polymeropoulos is the central subject. The Havana Syndrome coverage alone – where he became the public face of the issue – represents significant independent coverage in multiple tier-1 outlets. Could you clarify what additional sourcing would be required? I’m unclear how feature profiles in GQ, NBC, CBS, and NPR fail to meet the “significant coverage” threshold.

‘Timothy Thibault

This subject received substantial national news coverage in August–September 2022 when whistleblower allegations were made public by Senator Chuck Grassley:

CBS News (August 31, 2022): “Timothy Thibault, top-level FBI agent under fire for role in Hunter Biden investigation, resigns” – substantial article with Thibault as primary subject

Newsweek (August 30, 2022): “Who is Timothy Thibault? FBI Agent Behind Hunter Biden Probe Retires” – explanatory profile piece

ABC News affiliates: Coverage of his departure and the whistleblower allegations

Washington Times (August 29-30, 2022): Multiple articles with Thibault as primary subject

Congressional records: Senator Grassley’s formal letters to DOJ/FBI specifically about Thibault’s alleged conduct (May and July 2022)

FBI Director Christopher Wray’s Senate testimony specifically addressing allegations against Thibault Thibault became a significant news figure in his own right – covered extensively across multiple outlets as the central subject of whistleblower allegations, congressional inquiries, and his subsequent departure from the FBI. This appears to meet WP:BIO1E for individuals notable for a single event that received substantial coverage. — I’m genuinely trying to understand the notability threshold here. If feature profiles in major publications (GQ, NBC, CBS, Newsweek) don’t constitute “significant coverage,” could you point me toward examples of what would? I want to ensure any resubmissions meet the standard. Thank you for your time. Bladerunner24 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SafariScribe:, just following up on my November 29 request for clarification above when you have a chance. I want to make sure any resubmission meets the standard. Thanks! Bladerunner24 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladerunner24, please I will reply tonight. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Looking forward to hearing your feedback Bladerunner24 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SafariScribe,

thanks for the for approving my article, Ive been helping out with another draft id like to have you check out if possible Draft:McKinzie Scott. Thanks again Lopsd (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lopsd, I am sorry for the late reply. Today is Sunday and as well, very hectic for me. We don’t normally review per request but I do it since it does clear the same backlog. I think the tagged draft has been reviewed. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cheers! had to remake it because of the issues, all fixed now so if you want to take it look at it now it would mean a lot. Lopsd (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Olivia_Park

She has already Korean Wikipedia. https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B0%95%EC%9D%80%EA%B5%90

And s
A Soccerkk (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Soccerkk, unfortunately the draft doesn’t meet the threshold for acceptance here, on English Wikipedia. May I also let you know that different Wikipedia has their different notability guidelines, hence an article may exist in German/Korean Wikipedia but not here. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Safariscribe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_Freedman_(musician)
Daniel Freedman has been in 2 TONY award wining broadway shows as a featured performer, Hadestown and American Utopia. Was also featured in the film of American Utopia. Their work as a leader and sideman has been reviewed and featured in the US’s top journals and newspapers. Every cite in bold meets these requirements.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Micallef, Ken (July 2016). "Best Albums of 2016" (PDF). Downbeat. 83 (7).
Ratliff, Ben (21 December 2012). "A Cubanized Blending of Musical Languages". New York Times.
Tamarkin, Jeff (1 July 2016). "Daniel Freedman: Imagine That". Jazztimes. Retrieved 15 August 2024.
Rentner, Simon. "Imagine That: Daniel Freedman". wbgo.org. WBGO.
Chinen, Nate (8 September 2016). "Jazz Listings". New York Times.

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

 1998	Various Artists	Jazz Underground: Live at Smalls	Impulse! Records
 2009	Sting	If on a Winter’s Night…	Deutsche Grammophon

Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were “notable” only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were “notable” only because those musicians had been in them.)

 Ryzik, Melena (21 September 2021). "Bicycle Diaries: Cruising With the 'American Utopia' Family". New York Times. Retrieved 23 June 2023.
 Pearis, Bill (4 March 2018). "David Byrne debuted "untethered" 'American Utopia' tour in NJ (video, pics, setlist)". brooklynvegan.com. Brooklyn Vegan. Retrieved 4 March 2018.

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Chinen, Nate (28 March 2010). "Funk, Jazz and Bollywood With Rhythms of Africa". New York Times.
Jackson, Josh (3 July 2012). "Daniel Freedman: Lessons From Motoring In Mali". NPR.
Ratliff, Ben (21 December 2012). "A Cubanized Blending of Musical Languages". New York Times.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

Hans, Simran (19 December 2020). "American Utopia review – David Byrne and Spike Lee burn down the house". The Guardian.

Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Jackson, Josh (3 July 2012). "Daniel Freedman: Lessons From Motoring In Mali". NPR.

Mistephake (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)mistephake[reply]

Hi @Mistephake, I have commented there with regard to your comment above. Please check the draft. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve updated ref 1 with a page number. Mistephake (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi safariscribe. Sorry i added all that content on your talk to establish Freedman’s notability. If Freedman’s notability is not in question then it appears you denied the article based on the cites about his family members. Please explain why these refs are not verifiable: The Brooklyn Rail is a noted journal and Pitchfork. thanks Mistephake (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SafariScribe! I saw when reviewing Draft:Udi Mokady at AfC that you had previously told the creator that they needed to provide copies of book sources within their draft itself in order for those sources to be considered by AfC reviewers [5]. I’m not sure I really agree with that advice, since including copies of a book within a draft will almost always be a WP:COPYLINK violation (in this case the creator followed your suggestion and included their Google Drive links to scans of the book within the draft, which I have now removed). WP:AFCSTANDARDS also specifies that offline and book sources are acceptable. Just wanted to suggest that in future you might want to request that quotes/scans be sent to you directly via email or leave the draft for another reviewer if you don’t have access to book sources, rather than suggesting that copies of the books be included within the draft itself. MCE89 (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]