User talk:Junbeesh

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for your contributions to Kutty Ahammed Kutty. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pachu KannanThank you so much for the barnstar! I am glad my contributions were helpful. Junbeesh (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that your talk page welcomes new messages and comments ad I am not sure I am doing this correctly (if not forgive me, i can delete this at your request) but I just wanted to ask for your help. I saw that you reviewed a page that I was working on, Draft:Sabina Kodra and you moved it to drafts because of insufficent sources. I did some changes to that a month ago and i added more sources, i replaced IBMD links with more relevant links. But until now no one has reviewed it and was wondering if you might have time to review it again or offer feedback. I work for Sabina and she is asking me if there is any update and im in a difficult situation. If you can please take a look, i would be very appreciative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidabaci (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nidabaci Replacing IBMD links alone is not sufficient. There are other issues as well—the draft contains several primary and potentially unreliable or non-independent sources. For example, references 2, 3, and 4 are all primary sources, which are generally not suitable for establishing notability or verifying information on Wikipedia. The platform relies on secondary, independent, and reliable sources to ensure content is well-sourced and verifiable. Additionally, some sentences in the article lack citations to support the information presented.

If Sabina requested you to create this article, you have a conflict of interest, which should be disclosed per WP:COI.

Please review WP:RS and WP:COI to better understand Wikipedia's sourcing and conflict-of-interest policies. Junbeesh (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to reach out because I noticed your recent draftication of Draft:Purnagiri Jan Shatabdi Express, which occurred within one minute of the article being meaningfully edited ([1]). Per WP:DRAFTNO, articles shouldn't be draftified if they are actively being edited. In practice, this means articles shouldn't be draftified if they have been meaningfully edited in the past hour.

I understand and sympathize with wanting unsourced articles out of main space, but we also need to recognize that it can come across as bitey to draftify an article too quickly -- especially considering that articles in mainspace do not need to be complete, and editors are allowed to develop articles in the mainspace .

I hope this makes sense. Thank you again for all your help making Wikipedia better. It's definitely appreciated! Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade When this article was created, it was unsourced from the start. I moved it to draft after 50 minutes, which I believe was ample time for the creator to add references. I waited, expecting them to do so, but they didn't. Another editor even added an 'unreferenced' tag, yet 15 minutes later, there were still no sources. The article still appears incomplete and would benefit from thorough referencing. Why not keep it in draft space so the creator can work on it at their own pace and move it to the mainspace once it's fully sourced and complete? Junbeesh (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article had been created almost an hour earlier, it was still actively being edited. While it may be better for editors to create articles in draftspace (I would prefer this, too!), they are not required to do so. Unless serious problems exist (e.g., copyright or personal attacks), it is best practice to let editors continue working on their articles in the mainspace. Once they are no longer working on it (as evidenced by not editing for at least an hour and/or removing an {{under construction}} tag), you are free to move to draftspace as appropriate.

As someone who helps out with new editors, the biggest issues I have seen with premature draftification include new editors becoming distraught ("Where did my article go??") or feeling attacked, both of which hurt editor retention. Additionally, editors will sometimes quickly recreate the same article in the mainspace and/or move the draft back to the mainspace, both of which can make things more difficult for more experienced editors because at that point, we may still be dealing with a potentially unsourced article, but now we don't have the option to draftify. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Got it! I'll keep that in mind and be more careful moving forward. Thanks for the clarification! Junbeesh (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you draftified Draft:USA Cup/Intercontinental Cup 1950 after it had already been draftified by @Significa liberdade, and then moved back to mainspace by the article author. In cases like these you should either discuss it on talk pages or go straight to WP:AfD. This is explained more in WP:DRAFTOBJECT. FozzieHey (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey I agree with you, but the page creator didn't add a single source and just moved the article straight to mainspace. I know that if a creator moves their article back to mainspace, it's usually not appropriate to draftify it again per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. But this article has serious issues like poor formatting and not enough inline citations, so it really doesn't belong in mainspace in its current state. I didn't send it to AfD because the topic seems notable. When it was draftified the first time, the creator automatically got a notification on their talk page, so I didn't leave a separate message. But they ignored it and moved the article right back to mainspace. The second draftification was to see if they'd take a step back and actually fix the article before moving it again, especially since two different editors already opposed keeping their incomplete version in mainspace. Junbeesh (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I just thought I'd let you know. In the future I would just treat the first draftify as a WP:BOLD move, and if the author reverts it then raise it via other means, whether that's talk pages or AfD. The essay saying "an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time" in bold is written like that to avoid a WP:MOVEWAR I imagine. As for that article, I'll leave another message on the author's talk page and we can see if they'll respond. FozzieHey (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Ruti Joel. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junbeesh, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I understand your concerns about self-promotion, and as my nearly 19-year-old account history shows, I genuinely respect Wikipedia's guidelines. However, I'm trying to understand the policy regarding content submissions when one has direct knowledge or association with the subject matter. Is it truly against Wikipedia's principles to contribute information that we profoundly understand and can accurately present? I'd appreciate some clarification on this point. Stefan171 (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan171 Hey, thank you for your message. It's definitely not against Wikipedia's principles to share accurate and well-sourced info, even if you're connected to the topic. But Wikipedia does encourage editors with a conflict of interest to be open about their connection and to submit any draft through the Articles for Creation process. You can check out the details at WP:COI. Also, while it's great that your account has been around for almost 19 years, it looks like you've only recently started editing and haven't made too many edits yet. That's totally okay everyone starts somewhere, but right now, your contributions don't yet show a solid grasp of Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines. A lot has changed since 2009, so I'd really recommend going through the core policies again, especially around what makes a topic notable and how to support it with reliable sources. You can read more about that at WP:ORG, WP:V, and WP:RS.Junbeesh (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Alexander Yaw Debrah you marked it as "Sources exist", but when I reviewed the page I saw no evidence of a pass of WP:NPROF. Can you please tell me what sources prove notability? His h-factor of 32 is not great, particularly as the highest cited papers are team efforts. If you look at his co-authors, he does not stand out for citations. I also do not see outstanding evidence in a Google search. Maybe you found something I missed, it would be good to add this to the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 Thanks for the careful look. I marked "Sources exist" based on coverage in MyJoyOnline, News Ghana, and G-WAC, as well as the EDCTP announcement and independent reporting on his 2025 Dr. Pascoal Mocumbi Prize. While I noted his h‑index/i10‑index, I agree that metrics alone do not establish WP:NPROF, especially where the most‑cited work is collaborative. My thought was that the EDCTP prize might satisfy WP:NPROF#2 (a significant national or international award). If consensus is that this prize is not at the level contemplated there, I am happy to reconsider that route. Even if it falls short of a clean NPROF pass, I believe the independent coverage could still meet WP:ANYBIO. I'm happy to add these citations to the article.

Prof. Debrah has held academic leadership roles at KNUST (Head of Department; Dean, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences; Acting Provost, College of Health Sciences). He also chaired the Planning Committee for ICAAC (ASM) and has recognitions including a Paul‑Ehrlich‑Society for Anti‑Infective Therapy award and the Momento Research Prize in Germany. I believe these collectively help support a claim under WP:NPROF as well. Junbeesh (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EDCTP is a grant, not an award in the sense of #2 (by a long way). The Pascoal Mocumbi Prize might count, but is not in the article.

As a NPP reviewer I believe our task is not just to review, but to improve. I would either have added the awards myself, or added tags and ping'd the original editor asking that they add them. Similarly add the articles you mentioned, although they would need verification for editorial oversight (WP:RS). The current article fails WP:Burden for notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated sources #1 and #3 and more coverage from MyJoyOnline. I've left out #2 for now. It looks dubious to me too and lacks editorial oversight, so a WP:RS review would be appropriate. I also added four awards that appear significant in the context of his research and global-health contributions. Junbeesh (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently draftified the past and current Presidents of King Abdulaziz University. The criteria for academics are different, and both are non-contraversial passes of WP:NPROF#C6. While they had a few unsourced awards, they had the standard format used for academics. A couple of tags perhaps, but I think draftification was a bit too severe. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I didn't draftify on notability grounds or because they failed WP:NPROF. The move was based on article quality: the pages read as promotional/puffery (arguably meeting WP:G11) and lacked sufficient independent sourcing. Rather than tagging for speedy deletion, I moved them to draft to give the creator time to improve the content. Given the tone and sourcing, there also appeared to be a possible WP:COI, so routing the articles through WP:AFC seemed the most appropriate path before restoring them to mainspace. Please see the original mainspace version of Tareef bin Yousuf Alaama prior to the move; the text there was promotional. Junbeesh (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junbeesh, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert earlier this week about the Robert W. Fleming page starting out as an orphan, in terms of being unconnected to other Wikipedia pages. I think that's now addressed; Robert W. Fleming is now listed as a notable person on Rochester Mustangs and List of people from Rochester, Minnesota, as well as Lester Patrick Trophy, List of people from Winnipeg and List of University of Minnesota people.

I appreciate the guidance. If those are enough links to warrant taking down the "orphan" banner, that's great. Rather than make any change at this stage myself, though, I'll leave it to you. GCA10 (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GCA10Looks good now—plenty of incoming links. I've removed the orphan tag. Thanks for the improvements, and happy editing! Junbeesh (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]