User talk:NeoGaze

Hi NeoGaze! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message Hamid NeoGaze (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft cites three sources – an album booklet, the website of some sort of society dedicated to the composer, and a book (offline, and cited with insufficient bibliographical detail) – which isn't enough to determine whether the subject is notable per WP:NMUSIC (it certainly isn't per WP:GNG). Meanwhile, the vast majority of the content is unreferenced – where is all this information coming from?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Symphony No. 2 in E minor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NeoGaze! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Symphony No. 2 in E minor. Thanks! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Reconrabbit was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The comments made by CurryTime7-24 and DoubleGrazing still apply. Better references are needed, and those that exist do not support all of the paragraphs present.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Symphony No. 2 in E minor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Reconrabbit 14:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeoGaze! Your additions to Draft:Symphony No. 2 in E minor have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No. 2 in E minor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Garsh (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Draft:Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeoGaze! Your additions to Draft:Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Thanks! CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hey, thanks for editing the article, XIT Ranch. I grew up in the at area and I watch that article. I appreciate any constructive edit to it. Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Dillard421, it is greatly appreciated! NeoGaze (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, In addition to requesting article assessments, please consider doing an assessment of one (or more) articles in the backlog. For introduction to assessments, see Assessment information; you can help!. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:JoeNMLC, thanks for your message! Perhaps I could assess one of the articles I posted and you could check if everything was correct, just so if I'm getting things right? NeoGaze (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Symphony No. 2 (Brian) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UpTheOctave! -- UpTheOctave! (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Symphony No. 2 (Brian) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Symphony No. 2 (Brian) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UpTheOctave! -- UpTheOctave! (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Portraits of Mozart, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the earliest of the authentic portraits of Mozart shows the prodigy wearing the clothes of Archduke Maximilian Francis of Austria, given as a gift by Empress Maria Theresa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Portraits of Mozart), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email NeoGaze, I thought I'd reply here as I like to keep discussion about reviews on-wiki for maximum transparency. I'm happy to hear you've been improving the article! To answer your question, due to the rejection and the relatively isolated nature of good article reviews, I think it would be best for someone else to do a re-review. This way, the article can get the maximum attention possible and any possible bias I might have from the first review is irrelevant. I'll leave a few pointers on the analysis here, as requested:

• One of the main problems I noticed when first reviewing was issues with verifiability: per the verifiability policy, the content in an article must be able to be verified by a reliable source. As you can see in featured articles like Saxophone Sonata (Creston) or Short Symphony, all the analysis is directly sourced to avoid original research. I'd check again to make sure you're only paraphrasing or (shortly) quoting other sources.
• Adding on to the above, you are allowed to use the score as a source, but only for simple observations. Anything that could be remotely seen as an interpretation is not allowed per our policy on using primary sources. If you do this, the score should be cited like any other source (see the above examples).
• Avoid using emotionally-charged words in the analysis. When writing for Wikipedia, we aren't meant to show our own thoughts on a piece. By all means quote what others have said in a reception section with reviews, or dotted about in the analysis when relevant, but only when clearly attributing to a reliable source.

Hope this helps! Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it. I assume you haven't seen anything wrong with it so I renominated the article. Now in retrospect, it's quite baffling that the article was even accepted when the whole analysis was copied and pasted.

Have a good one! NeoGaze (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Symphony No. 2 (Brian) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian) and Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian)/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Symphony No. 2 (Brian) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian) for comments about the article, and Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Brian)/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Kimigayo into Draft:Symphony in F major (Yamada). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Apologies, I was not aware that such procedure was required. I will follow it from now on. Thanks for notyfing me! NeoGaze (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you NeoGaze for your contributions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment. Your efforts have significantly reduced the backlog of assessment requests. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @JoeNMLC for the gesture, cheers to you too! NeoGaze (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Symphony No. 2 (Brian) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time to explain your assessment - I've seen that such detailed feedback in such cases is not to be taken for granted.

I have fixed the broken references and deleted the reference to twitter (it's a reference to the subtitle of the novel and therefore not needed; the primary source should be sufficient reference).

I don't know what to do about plot and characters though - I have looked at top-rated articles in the category Novels (eg. Lolita, Pride and Prejudice), and there are never any inline-citations for plot and characters. My impression was always that the primary source is sufficient reference for the content of the novel.

I have also deleted the following paragragph which could be considered a bit too purple:

"Tokarczuk paints a nuanced picture of a transitional epoch that finds itself in "toxic unrest and unmistakably in the process of breaking into uncertainty." She creates a world of divine rulers, cunning charlatans, dark magicians, and charismatic miracle workers – a world of faith and superstition that exists beyond reason, science, and factuality, yet carries within itself the seed of coming upheavals."

Could you point out further passages that sound too peacocky?

Are peackocky terms allowed when directly quoting critics in the Section about Reception or the Nobel Committee? Adelequested (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adelequested Happy to see my feedback has led to improvement! On the plot and characters section, a reference is not mandatory, but should be included if available, specially if it constitutes a long part of the article as it is the case with The Books of Jacob. Imagine someone later vandalizes the plot section and, with no reference or source to consult, this change remains with nobody noticing. Again, it is not mandatory, but if you find a source that mentions plot and/or characters in any detail, you should include it. You can also reuse any of the available sources that do that already.

The paragraph you removed can be present if you're quoting someone else's statement with its proper reference (for example: literary critic John Doe claims that "this book is the best of the decade"). If that is not the case, then the language is too poetic and subjective for Wikipedia. I had the same issue told to me when I was working on the article of Portraits of Mozart, in which I initially described the paintings with subjective phrases. I will offer you a few further improvements for the article.

• The phrase "When Tokarczuk was awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature 'for a narrative imagination that with encyclopaedic passion represents the crossing of boundaries as a form of life'" is not really conected to the one before or after. Rephrase to something like "It was awarded..." or put a comma to connect it with the following phrase.
• Contradiction between several statements on the book's lenth: (over 1000 pages) in plot section and 912 pages in the infobox, and 1,200 pages in "Narrative Technique" section. I recommend remove the plot statement and settle on a single number of pages for consistency.
• I think the themes section is substantial enough to be its own part of the article, like "form", instead of just part of the plot.
• This part "The novel functions as a parable for today's social conditions. The pluralistic but unequal society of historical Poland-Lithuania reflects challenges of our present, where encounter, exchange, intolerance, and egoism exist side by side." would work better as a paraphrase (according to Florian Baranyi...) or a direct quotation (Florian Baranyi says "...") This also applies to several other statements on what the book is supposed to be or represent.
• In the first paragraph of "Narrative Technique", the use of "-" does not follow Wikipedia's manual of style (for an example, see this) they should be replaced by "–".

Now I mention some phrases that are peacocky or close to be (and yes, they are allowed in direct quotations).

• Tokarczuk opens her novel with an emblematic scene, emblematic to whom?, better if "symbolic" or "important"
• A particularly striking feature of "The Books of Jacob" is its unconventional page numbering several books have already done that before to my knowledge, so its not a particularly unique element to remark. Better rework this phrase as something like "An unusual feature.." or something close.
• Particularly remarkable is the portrayal of the main character Jakob Frank, again, to whom?. I would rephrase this part as "The main character, Jakob Frank, functions as the 'gravitational center of the novel'"
• The narrative voice operates with an artful temporal double perspective, "artful" to whom? Marie Schmidt? If that is the case quote or attribute her statement, otherwise its too subjective.
• A outstanding feature of the novel is again a judgement of value of the work, better remove "outstanding" for "important" or something close.

I hope my reply answers your questions and leads to further improvement! Have a good day NeoGaze (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are a star! Thanks so much! Adelequested (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		Thank you for your thorough feedback on my additions to the The Books of Jacob. You really were a great help!Adelequested (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adelequested Thank you very much! NeoGaze (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently working on an draft article about Geoffrey Hoyland (1889-1965) a Quaker educationalist and writer from Gloucestershire, England. I was wondering if you had any feedback and how you think it could be reviewed faster. Thank you! Haysop76 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Haysop76 Hello! Since you took the effort to contact me, I will review it myself and offer my feedback. NeoGaze (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Symphony No. 2 (Brian), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that British composer Havergal Brian described his Symphony No. 2 as "Man in his cosmic loneliness: ambition, loves, battles, death"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony No. 2 (Brian). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Symphony No. 2 (Brian)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an interesting article, also featured on Portal:Germany!

music from the 20th century

Thank you for quality articles around culture in many fields such as Symphony No. 2 (Brian), Portraits of Mozart, Antón García Abril, List of symphonic poems and The Tragedy of Man (film), for quality reviewing, for your user profile, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2969 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt Thank you very much! NeoGaze (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No. 6 (Langgaard), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Samoht27 (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samoht27 Thank you very much! NeoGaze (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) -Samoht27 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony in F major (Yamada), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phaéton (Saint-Saëns), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G Thank you! NeoGaze (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeoGaze:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Hello! Your submission of Phaéton (Saint-Saëns) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the usage of interviews as sources - these are often most of the sources available for musician articles. I also didn't use any primary sources from the band itself, so unsure what you mean by "promotional material." If you go to this section of my user page you can see articles I have made with very similar formatting - one of which even passed DYK. wizzito | say hello! 18:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizzito Hi. Yes, usually interviews are no problem, but I think they are problematic if used as the main sources. A Wikipedia article should (ideally) rely mainly on independent, reliable and secondary sources. In this case, the members of the band are involved, so the interviews are not independent, and they also count as primary sources.

In retrospect, I see that the text that relies on these interviews as references is non-controversial, so perhaps I may have been too strict there. I still think you should add more reliable and independent sources if possible. If you can't find more, then perhaps that's a sign that the band is not notable enough yet. Oh and I added that part about "promotional material" as a precaution, because some editors proceed to add too many citations with trivial sources or promotional material.

I hope my reply is satisfactory. If you still believe the draft is fine as it is, I invite you to resubmit it. NeoGaze (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing about modern music journalism nowadays is that there are way more interviews than there are articles looking at musicians and bands from a third-party context (I guess to save time?). You shouldn't add things that may not be true about a certain draft based on "a precaution." I will wait for more sources and reassess in some time. wizzito | say hello! 23:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I guess, I will avoid doing that from now on. NeoGaze (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize and $250 worth of prizes for architectural articles. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld Thanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately I barely have time left to edit these days due to work. I had to stop contributing to the AFC backlog cleanup for this reason. NeoGaze (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understand! Take care! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure the creating editor helped themselves there. GPTZero has an interesting opinion of at least the version of the draft I checked, albeit not a conclusive one. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! AI might have been used to a small degree or even as a starting point for the draft, but as it is now I don't see clear and undeniable proof of it being so. NeoGaze (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me and another user @AlphaBeta have an argument. I have a draft that he told me to work on something else and blocked my draft into Afc, the first time that he did this i undid it than he put back and gave me a stop your disruptive editing, I have COI to the topic. So, anyways what should I do, undo it again and get banned, just continue to edit the draft, warn or easy talkback to him, or something else? warn or easy talkback to him, or something else? Sunny's Highway 27 12:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunhighway27 You are refering to the Fourmile Corner draft, right? To begin with, you shouldn't undo a decline or rejection, as it counts as disruptive editing. Now you can't resubmit the draft because it got rejected, I think its a bit harsh but the deed is done. I don't recommend creating a new draft if you are just going to copy the content submit it again with no substantial changes.

Now onto the draft itself, the issue is notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, otherwise anyone and anything could potentially be subject of an article. The provided sources in the draft are maps and passing mentions, this is simply not enough to establish notability. We need substantia, reliable and independent sources to show that a topic is notable. If you can't find more sources, then there's little you can do beyond waiting for more coverage of this place. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

I suggest, as AlphaBeta did, you focus instead on another topic that is notable and well-covered, or just to improve established articles instead. I hope my reply is helpful, best regards NeoGaze (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did more work, I might move it, do you approve yet Sunny's Highway 27 21:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the topic is not notable, and don't submit my draft without asking me first, it is far from being finished. NeoGaze (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay Sunny's Highway 27 21:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I subbmitted your article for Fantasia in F minor, K. 608 for Afc Sunny's Highway 27 21:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you to not do that, stop already. You can edit it if you are going to improve it, but don't submit it yet please. NeoGaze (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isn't finished. You can just revert it and remove the Afc stuff and keep and look over the citations Sunny's Highway 27 21:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frootbat, check my decision Sunny's Highway 27 21:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunhighway27 Well it obviously wasn't ready to be moved to main, and so it was redrafted. You are acting recklessly, if you submit a draft through AFC, you shouldn't then move it to main after it is declined. Most of the time, the reasons for decline are reasonable. NeoGaze (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NeoGaze. You have new messages at [[User talk:Fourmile Corner|User talk:Fourmile Corner]].
Message added 22:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have check for notability and SIVGOV, is it ready, did you even check it Sunny's Highway 27 22:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunhighway27 I can barely understand you, but no, you haven't proven the topic is notable yet. I suggest you let the draft go and focus on another thing. NeoGaze (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoGaze, I had gone through the claims made by me and check and it foolows the refrecens , tomorrow unless of a good reason i might move it Sunny's Highway 27 20:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping me, since this is my talk page. I don't really understand what you're trying to achieve, you want to publish that draft no matter the problems it has? Me (as well as other people) have told you several times why it was declined and then rejected. If you plan to move it to main in its current state, it will probably get redrafted or even nominated for deletion. That place is just not notable in the slightest, please reconsider your actions. NeoGaze (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Sunny's Highway 27 01:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Symphony in F major (Yamada), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yamada's Symphony in F major had to be reconstructed after a maritime accident and after the bombing of Tokyo during WWII? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony in F major (Yamada). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Symphony in F major (Yamada)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]

story · music · places

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Gerda. Cheers! NeoGaze (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the next symphony on the main page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died + I have a "defiant" cantata up for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got news that Alfred Brendel died as well (nominated the article for ITN). I liked his recordings of Beethoven's cello sonatas. NeoGaze (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same news and worked on it. Thank you for the nom, - I moved it to 17, the DOD, fixed the citation (they take publisher, not header), and dropped Mozart. There should be more in the article but days have only 24 hours. It's a shame that as long as he lived the article was poor. - Listen to "Comfort ye" - my sad story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today look at the autograph of Beethoven's last piano sonata and listen to the pianist who wanted to serve the compositions most of all - thank you for nominating! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a look at your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Italian brainrot and have a few comments

• Age of article when nominated: I think that seven days means in the seven days before the current day (UTC time) but you could note that it is a few hours later than exactly 7 days
• "962 words , which comes short of the 1500 characters required": the length is OK, the criterion is characters not words (please correct)
• The article had a tone tag when reviewed, now removed. {{tone}} is a dispute tag, see Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes, so it needed to be removed before the nomination could be approved, see in a nutshell section of Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines
• Tell the nominator what they need to do. I think that as you are not happy with the hook, you could ask them to provide an alternative
• Generally you should have read Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines before doing a review although no-one will memorise the whole thing. Have you installed Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck? That checks things like length and five times expansion for you.

TSventon (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I just corrected the nomination and I have installed DYKcheck. I should have read more carefully the guideline. Apologies NeoGaze (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blaming you for not remembering every word of the guideline. As you have made a lot of changes to the review I would change the date on the signature and remind the nominator on their talk page.

I would suggest that you choose slightly easier nominations for your next couple of reviews: find a nomination with a hook you like and where other editors haven't found problems. Also an article that is new enough and long enough per DYKcheck, free of dispute tags, and not a list article. If the nominator has done a QPQ, that shows that they are probably more experienced. Then you can follow the nomination as it moves to main page. TSventon (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that for sure, thanks again for the feedback. NeoGaze (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Symphony No. 6 (Langgaard), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rued Langgaard said that his Symphony No. 6 depicts the struggle between Jesus and "spiritual wickedness in high places"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony No. 6 (Langgaard). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Symphony No. 6 (Langgaard)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 June 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Alfred Brendel, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. NeoGaze (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gfourie (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Deon Fourie (army general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your review of this article and the comments. I believe all the issues have now been corrected. Could you confirm that this is now the case.

Gidz (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There are still a couple of tags to take care of, but you certainly improved the draft. My only concern is that the sources you added are not independent, as they come from the subject himself. I recommend that if possible, you exchange them for others if the info is repeated in other sources (which are also reliable). Best wishes. NeoGaze (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]