User talk:Johannes Maximilian

Archives (index)

2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Hello. I'm reaching out to let you know that the changes you requested for my draft were implemented and I have resubmitted it for review a third time at this point after making adjustments to it. I will let you know that there is no Spanish version of this article. I did search for it on the Spanish version of Wikipedia, with help from Google translate, but I didn't see anything about it. I do not speak fluent Spanish, so I am unable to do that; so, if you or someone you know speaks Spanish and who edits or writes articles on Wikipedia, please feel free to make one if you want. If it helps, I will tell you that the Spanish name for the Special National Brigade is BRIGADA ESPECIAL NACIONAL DEL MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR. I just thought I would let you know that I resubmitted my draft. Thanks for the help. EAD98144 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes, respectfully, what is it in the citations for the article that you find problematic? There are ~8 major sources (e.g. NY Times, Washington Post, WSJ) and the balance is from the indictment and the appellate court reports (which are highly reliable). Obviously I would like more sources especially for Will Harris's early life (and for other editors to add more based on their greater resources). However, the specificity is high in the existing article with >95% of the sources are about Will Harris. I am perplexed by your unspecific comment and the unreliable sources. All of the links pull directly to the relevant documents. Please provide more feedback. thank you Refineryguycanada (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also - I scrubbed some of the dates etc. from the auto-populate wizard (which appears to have some issues). If this was the nature of your rejection earlier, please let me know. It was minor cleanup. Your response to me was very broad, so I prefer not to be presumptuous and assume that this was all. thanks Refineryguycanada (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes, Greetings. Thanks for taking a look at this draft. I am not sure what part of it lacks adequate references. Can you kindly point to it? Thank you for your time. Yzrzi (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day! The problem is the "bare link" citation style. Many footnotes in your draft have no formatting at all, and it remains unclear what you've cited. Please format your footnotes properly. C.f. WP:CITEHOW. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes:

You rejected the page because you could not verify the sources. Please advise whether or not the following source is a verifiable source:

https://repositorio.umsa.bo/handle/123456789/11306

Thank you for your time and attention.

Xavier Serif (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day to you! Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page. I declined the draft – which, in Wikipedia terminology, is different from rejecting it. You can always improve a declined draft and resubmit it. In your case, I declined the draft as not being adequately supported by reliable sources because I deem a sufficiently huge number of sources unreliable. In particular, your draft cites opinion pieces hosted on pages such as Blogspot or YouTube, which, on Wikipedia, do not qualify as reliable, secondary sources. The draft's subject is deceased, however, the draft is still is a biography, therefore, extra caution is warranted when assessing cited sources. The sources' verifiability does not pose a problem.

The link you posted refers to Guillermo Mejillones Quispe: El Servicio de Inteligencia entre 1927-1938: El Espionaje, Contraespionaje de Bolivia durante la Guerra del Chaco., La Paz 2017. The work is a Licentiate Thesis (i.e., a Master Thesis) uploaded the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés server. It is not a published work and thus doesn't qualify as a secondary or reliable source. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says: " (…) care should be exercised, as [Master Theses] are often, in part, primary sources. (…) Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."

Another note: I spotted multiple duplicate references in your draft, I recommend you fix that. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback. Please give me an example of a duplicate reference so that I may correct that deficiency. Xavier Serif (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of 3 November 2024, (Special:Diff/1255228371) the draft has the following duplicate footnotes:

• 1, 26
• 2, 22, 25, 28
• 3, 29
• 4, 30
• 5, 31
• 6, 24, 32, 34, 35
• 7, 33, 36
• 9, 11, 12
• 13, 14, 15
• 18, 19, 20

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]