User talk:GMH Melbourne

This is GMH Melbourne's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024: 30 days

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. 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) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:GARC-new-circle

Template:GARC-new-circle has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, GARC is ready, and I figured I'd mention...

My article, while a film, has a nicely-sized section dedicated to the film's soundtrack, which is also an album. Do keep this in mind when considering whom gets what to assign. I say this because User:Chchcheckit prefers to review music-related articles. I figured since my article has more to do with music than snooker and tornadoes, I'd come forth with this so you'd know. Thank you. Barnt Toust 19:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: Hello and thank you for your message, I have asked User: Chchcheckit if they'd be ok with it given they've exclusively reviewed music articles in the past. GMH Melbourne (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's NPP Barnstar Award
		This award is given in recognition to GMH Melbourne for conducting 108 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GARC

Hi, I'd just like to tell you that GARC is getting quite full. I do see a possible circle, PCN02WPS reviews 2011 Central Alabama tornado, EF5 reviews George Rolph, Z1720 review Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2024 Summer Olympics, and I review 2024 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game. It think that is fits in everyone's preferences that they listed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized that you haven't edited for 10 days. I am going to make the circle, to make sure that it doesn't get so filled up with nominations. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Hello, thank you for your work in assessing and cleaning up my submitted page on Harry Hillier. I appreciate it! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck

GMH Melbourne You have got to stop requesting so many moves in one RM. I have nothing wrong with most of these moves but doing them together has possibility to be WP:Trainwreck. On the latest one, I strongly recommend withdrawing Belrose, New South Wales from the RM. I did RMS on Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Normanhurst, Warrawee, Pymble, Naremburn (Just to name a few) and did them all Separately which you appear to have no desire to do. I will change my vote to Support if you withdraw Belrose and do it separately Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere: Thank you for your message. I will cool it on the RMs. I have withdrawn Belrose. I tried to do them in smaller batches and weed out ones that maybe controversial doing them separately, but obviously, some slip through the gap. Sorry if my edit have annoyed/offended you in anyway. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Wake academic and President of JERAA

Hi there,

I appreciate you leaving feedback on Alexandra Wake's wikipedia page.

I would like to say first that I do not have a conflict of interest. I am undertaking a passion project of sorts, with the aim to produce Wikipedia pages for female academics as I think they are underrepresented by Wikipedia. I think it is important to highlight the contribution they are giving to their area of study. I am an aspiring journalist and have heard of Alexandra Wake and the work she does. I think she should have a Wikipedia page, considering her Presidency of JERAA.

As you can probably tell, I am a first-time publisher. So I would appreciate any more advice you can give me to get my first page published, so that I can start producing more pages for female academics.

In reference to Alex Wake's page, I will look for more references but I feel I have included some good evidence. In my last edit I removed less important information to focus on her notability. I just feel that many other academics have far less detailed pages published, so I am struggling to understand why my page is not up to scratch. I feel I am meeting the notability requirements.

So please let me know if you have any more advice here. I appreciate your time. Kind regards, Xanthe Xanthe editor (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xanthe editor: Hello, for an academic, the main tests on whether an article is ok to publish to wikipedia is not the quality of the article but whether or not the person/topic meets WP:NPROF and WP:GNG guidelines. The article currently has a lot of sources that aren't independent of the subject. To meet WP:GNG article usually needs 2+ sources that are a) independent of the subject b) secondary-sources c) reliable-sources and d) cover the subject in-depth. Strictly speaking, anything that isn't independent of the subject should be removed. Also note that Alexandra Wake may also be suitable for namespace under the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria if you can prove so. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TFDH and orphans

Just a quick note, if the result of a TFD is to delete a template, it should not be moved to the "ready to delete" section of TFDH until all transclusions are removed or commented out (see e.g. Special:Diff/1285384541 and Special:Diff/1285384592). Not the end of the world, but if I hadn't noticed the extra transclusions they'd still be called after deletion. If you're not sure whether to remove or comment out something, you are of course welcome to leave them for someone else, or ask for a second opinion. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I misread "Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed". Now I know for next time. Thank you for alerting me! GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you're definitely not the first! Primefac (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Gaido Refusal

Hi, thanks for your feedback, I have a question, in regard to:

The sources in this article do not establish notability. To establish notability, there must be multiple sources that are secondary, independent of the subject, reliable, and in depth.

How are SBS, Vogue, National Library of Australia not "independent of the subject"? I really can't wrap my head around it. Can you explain? Roundrain (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roundrain: There is no link to the vogue article so I couldn't verify it, but the problem with the NLA source is that he is an author and the SBS podcast is him being interviewed therefore it isn't independent coverage. An example of independent coverage by a secondary source would be this ABC article about Cate Blanchett. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking time to explain, makes total sense now.

My only question is then why it looks like printed media is on a grey area?

I have collected here: https://www.thegreatarmando.com/press/ the referenced material from the draft, but I guess it's non verifiable by a third party? I am really interested in the process beyond this article, how do Wikipedia editors verify articles? I know that Il Globo has a PDF archive: https://ilglobonewspaper.com.au/publications/2/?page=1 but it's paywalled and doesn't go too far back, but Vogue Uomo exists only in paper form, I am really curious about this if you can take the time to explain, even to submit a new draft at one point in time.

I really appreciate your kind replies, it's a new world! Roundrain (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roundrain: Print media is fine but it wasn't linked in the article so I couldn't check it. Offline sources are ok to verify information but when establishing notability of a topic, that is 'is a person/topic notable enough for a Wikipedia article?' There needs to be evidence of multiple sources that are secondary, independent of the subject, reliable, and in depth (see WP:GNG). GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would I go about linking those articles? Would putting them on Wikimedia commons work?

Or if not, what's the right way to link them? Roundrain (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]