User talk:Cabrils

Thank you, @Cabrils, for taking time to review my article, Draft:Travis_Hill_(attorney), and provide feedback. I’ve implemented your suggestions and would appreciate your reassessment. A few updates in response to your comments:

- I believe the subject satisfies general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) based on significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. An October 2025 Reuters article focused substantially on Hill and his regulatory philosophy, including his positions on bank supervision, capital rules, bank mergers, resolution planning and the regulation of digital assets. The Wall Street Journal devoted an article to Hill’s analysis and criticism of the FDIC’s handling of the Silicon Valley Bank failure. Subsequent Reuters articles and reporting by American Banker have separately covered Hill’s role in consequential banking policy debates, including the rewrite of bank capital requirements and changes intended to encourage financial innovation and new bank formation. Capitol Account has also reported in detail on Hill’s leadership of the FDIC and the policy changes he has undertaken as chairman. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Taken together, these sources provide substantial independent coverage of Hill across multiple years and on multiple aspects of his work. The coverage goes beyond routine appointment announcements or quotations from an agency official and discusses Hill’s regulatory philosophy, policy positions, actions, and influence on federal banking policy.

Below are links to previously published articles for former FDIC chairmen, which contain similar sourcing, though two have fewer independent secondary sources than Hill’s article. Can you help me understand how these articles meet notability criteria if Hill’s does not? Martin J. Gruenberg, Jelena McWilliams, L. William Seidman

- The image file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The rights to the work are waived under copyright law as noted on the image file. Does other sourcing information need to be included in the article?

- My COI is declared on my Talk page.

Thanks again. PennyG (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see the draft was accepted into mainspace, good work. Cabrils (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I had a bit of finger trouble today at this draft. Sorry about that. I have reverted it back to the state where you had turned it down for AfC, but don't you think that declining an article on an IEEE fellow might be thought to smack just a little bit of racism? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The draft was declined for the numerous and detailed issues I outlined in my comment. If you wish the draft to be accepted into mainspace I encourage you to address those issues in the manner suggested. Cabrils (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils! Following up on your review of Draft:Professional Builders Supply. After digging more into the available sourcing, I wasn't able to find much coverage beyond routine trade publications and business journal announcements. I don't think the subject currently meets WP:NCORP, so rather than resubmit, I've tagged the draft for G7 deletion as the author. Appreciate the helpful feedback; it made the notability gap clear. Also, for the record: I'm currently an employee of a company that held majority ownership of the subject from 2017–2021, which was before my time there. This is noted on my userpage disclosure. Thanks again. OrdinaryBrad (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the follow up. It looks like you're doing some good work so I encourage you to persevere. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils, thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation August Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 3000 drafts already. We have around 1300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in the next 10 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to help make it happen – if everyone who signed up to the drive reviewed just 1–2 drafts a day for the next ten days, we'd be down to zero in no time! A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest, or you can find a random submission here. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. 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. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. 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) 22:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. I have revised the article to address the concerns regarding notability, independent coverage, and sourcing.

These are the sources I beleive provide the strongest independent coverage of Professor Elmirghani:

1. Prachi Patel, The Institute (IEEE), “Building a More Eco-friendly Telecom Industry” (March 2016). A detailed profile covering Elmirghani’s career, research, IEEE Green ICT leadership, major projects, and GreenTouch 1000x Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozyelle (talk • contribs) 13:06, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
2. Richard Gray, The Daily Telegraph, “Intelligent roads to prevent accidents” (1 August 2008). This article reports on an intelligent-road research project at the University of Leeds and identifies Professor Elmirghani as the project leader.
3. IET, “Airport of the future: tracking people and packages.” This article discusses research involving Professor Elmirghani and his team on intelligent airport systems, including network modelling, passenger-flow management, communications requirements, and energy-efficient operation.
4. Al Bayan, “«الإنترنت» تستهلك الطاقة وتؤثر في البيئة” (19 August 2010). This article discusses Elmirghani's research on reducing the energy consumption and carbon footprint of communication networks and identifies him as the leader of the project.
5. Sudanow Magazine, “Sudanese Professor Jaafar Elmirghani: Honors Of Sorts - Academic And Material” (2021). This is an independent profile discusses Professor Elmirghani's academic career, research, professional activities, awards, and contributions to communication networks and energy-efficient communications.
6. Times Higher Education, “Institute advances communications to new level” (2 December 2005). This article identifies Professor Elmirghani as chair of optical communications and head of the institute, and discusses his role in establishing the Communications and Photonics Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozyelle (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
7. The Royal Academy of Engineering's 2025 Fellowship profile, which confirms his election as a Fellow and provides additional coverage of his research achievements, awards, sustainable ICT leadership, and research commercialisation.
8. IEEE Communications Society publications, including its President's Page, which provide substantive coverage of his Green ICT leadership, research contributions, and professional activities.
9. Okaz, “مجلس أعمال جامعة المؤسس يصدر13 قراراً إدارياً” (9 January 2012). Reports on Elmirghani’s visit to King Abdulaziz University, including his lectures and discussions of research collaboration and student exchange.
10. Saudi Press Agency (SPA), report on Elmirghani’s visit to King Abdulaziz University. Provides additional coverage of his lectures and proposed research collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozyelle (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have also added the Royal Society's 2020 project, “Carbon emissions from digital systems: what's the evidence?”, which identifies Professor Elmirghani as one of its expert contributors.

I have removed the previously cited BBC article that did not provide substantive coverage of Professor Elmirghani, as suggested in the review.

I hope these revisions address the concerns regarding independent coverage, sourcing, and notability. I would be grateful for any further comments. Lozyelle (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Lozyelle,

Thank you for that detailed and helpful reply, which I have copied to the Draft's Talk page.

On balance I agree the draft is now "unlikely to be deleted in mainspace” (see WP:AFCR), and meets WP:NPROF. Accordingly, I am happy to accept it into mainspace, and have done so. Well done! Cabrils (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils, you reviewed my Draft:Teen Truth submission in August 2023 and mentioned that I could contact you after revising and resubmitting it. I have now substantially rewritten the draft to address the issues you raised, including removing promotional language and restructuring the article around independent secondary sources. I have resubmitted the draft through Articles for Creation. If you have an opportunity to reassess it, I would appreciate it. Thank you! Mikekazseo (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the ping. As requested in my comment, could you please address, on the Draft's page, whether you have a conflict of interest? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils, I’m writing to ask for your opinion on the revised Draft: Serrala, which you declined in June.

Here’s the background: the initial draft was prepared by a company employee, who disclosed their COI. Four previous declines were mainly around neutrality, promotional tone, and unproven notability.

I later offered my help and took over the work, doing an independent review of the sources and rewriting the article myself. I had no prior connection to the company, but since I’m now working on their article with compensation for my time, I disclosed my paid-author status on my user page as well.

I’ve addressed the issues you raised by researching all available analytical publications about the company and focusing on what independent journalists say about the company, disregarding the company-driven stories. As a result, instead of 30 sources, there are 5 selected articles and 4 industry reports (please see my WP:THREE comments at the top of the page).

Although I conducted the research independently and wrote the article myself, given my COI status, I’m not the best person to judge how convincing the source base looks from the outside. So I’d really appreciate if you could reassess the draft. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 09:01, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Alexandra Goncharik,

Thanks for the ping, and your helpful and considered comment. You will have seen that I was pleased to accept the draft into mainspace--good work!

If there's anything that I can help with in future please feel free to drop me a note here. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. The Minor Barnstar is awarded for making minor edits of the utmost quality. This is awarded to Cabrils for accumulating more than 31.5 points during the August 2026 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for sharing your time, knowledge and dedication; together, we reviewed over 12,700 drafts during the drive and brought the 3+ month backlog down to just a single week, which we couldn't have done it without you. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils — thank you again for the guidance on the draft. I've posted the requested source/criteria analysis at Draft talk:Mark P. Robinson#Notability sources and criteria, made corresponding sourcing updates to the draft, and resubmitted it. You had kindly offered to reassess it, so I wanted to let you know it's ready for another look. Thank you. MarkPRobinson (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MarkPRobinson,

Thanks for the ping and your helpful reply on the Draft's Talk page-- please see my response there. Cabrils (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils — Thanks so much. I’m glad the additional sourcing was helpful. Before I revise the draft, could I ask you to reconsider one point about The Fine Print?

I understand your concern that it describes itself as an “email newsletter,” but I’m not sure that description alone resolves the reliability question under WP:RS. The Fine Print was a subscription-supported digital media publication devoted to original reporting on the media industry, with named editors and reporters and conventionally bylined articles.

The piece in question is a bylined reported feature by journalist Max Saltman, now a reporter at CNN, rather than self-published or promotional material. I also found some independent evidence about the publication that seems relevant. In a 2023 essay, n+1 specifically characterized The Fine Print as publishing “serious media reporting.” Columbia Journalism Review has also described it as “a newsletter covering the media industry in New York City.”

My understanding of WP:RS is that reliability depends on the source, author, editorial context and the claim being supported, rather than on whether a publication is distributed as a newsletter. Given those characteristics, would you be willing to reconsider whether The Fine Print can be used as a reliable secondary source here?

If you still think it doesn’t meet WP:RS, I’m happy to revise the draft accordingly. I wanted to check before removing it, since it is substantial independent biographical coverage and seems to me materially different from a self-published newsletter.

Thanks again for taking another look. MarkPRobinson (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @MarkPRobinson,

Thank you again for another prompt and helpful reply, which is compelling. It would help if you could please supply links to those specific assessments ie the "2023 essay, n+1 specifically characterized The Fine Print as publishing “serious media reporting.” Columbia Journalism Review has also described it as “a newsletter covering the media industry in New York City.”" I may have missed something but the links you did provide are just to the homepages of those publications?

Also, for greater visibility, it's best to post your reply on the Draft's Talk page, rather than here. Ideally you would post your mesaage above, but amended to contain revised links (as suggested). Do feel free to ping me here alerting my though (or just ping me in your post in the draft's Talk page and I'll be alerted.

All heading the right direction, cheers. Cabrils (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Cabrils:

Thank you again for your detailed feedback on Draft:George Zodrow. I have revised the draft substantially and wanted to respond directly to the concerns you raised about notability, sourcing, tone, and possible conflict of interest. I have also left my response on the article's talk page.

First, I want to clarify my connection to the subject. I have no personal, professional, or financial relationship with Professor Zodrow. I am a graduate student studying economics, with an interest in public economics and taxation. While doing literature review for my own work on property-tax reform, I repeatedly encountered Zodrow’s research, particularly his work on property taxation and tax competition. His papers and the Zodrow–Mieszkowski framework appear frequently in the literature I was reading, and because I had already accumulated substantial background material through that literature review, I decided independently to create a Wikipedia draft summarizing his academic contributions.

My understanding is that the strongest basis for notability is WP:NPROF Criterion 1, concerning research that has had a significant impact within a scholarly discipline. The clearest example is Zodrow’s 1986 paper with Peter Mieszkowski on capital tax competition. Later independent scholarship has repeatedly characterized this work as foundational. A Handbook of Public Economics survey states that “the formal literature on tax competition is largely rooted” in the models developed by Zodrow and Mieszkowski and John D. Wilson, while other published work describes the framework as a “workhorse” model, “canonical,” and a “classic” contribution to the literature. I believe these are unusually direct examples of later scholars identifying a specific research contribution as central to the development of a field, rather than simply citing the paper in passing.

There is also substantial professional recognition of his impact in public economics and public policy. In 2009, Zodrow received the Steven D. Gold Award, presented by the National Tax Association together with the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. The award specifically recognizes significant contributions to state and local fiscal policy and the ability to bridge academic research and public policy. At the presentation, James M. Poterba of MIT, then president of the National Tax Association, described Zodrow as “a leading international expert on state and local tax policy” and referred to his work as “pathbreaking research” on the major taxes used by state and local governments. Given the National Tax Association’s central role in the field of public finance and taxation, I believe this award is particularly relevant evidence of recognition by the professional community in which Zodrow works.

His broader scholarly record also supports this picture. Google Scholar currently reports more than 7,000 citations to his work. I understand that Google Scholar citation counts are only supporting evidence and should not establish notability by themselves, but I think the citation record is consistent with the independent scholarly assessments of the influence of his research.

I have also revised the draft substantially in response to your concern that it read too much like a promotional CV. I removed references that relied on Zodrow’s own writings or self-descriptions to establish the importance of his work, and I have tried to support claims of significance with reliable, external sources instead — especially independent journal articles, handbook chapters, published commentary by other economists, and recognition from professional organizations. I also condensed or removed routine biographical and professional details that were not directly relevant to notability. My goal has been to make the article read as an independently sourced academic biography rather than a summary of Zodrow’s own CV or publications.

Based on these revisions, I believe the draft now makes a clearer case that Zodrow meets WP:NPROF Criterion 1through the documented influence of his research on public economics, especially the development of modern capital tax-competition theory, and through significant recognition by the public-finance profession.

I would be very grateful for any further guidance on whether the revised sourcing and presentation now address the concerns you raised.

Thank you so much!

Best,

@Andiyxc

Andiyxc (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Firstly, I would encourage you to create a User Page as it will make communicating much for efficient and ensure you don't miss notifications, like to my reply here; and on the article's Talk page.

You'll be pleased to see I have accepted the draft into mainspace. Nice work. Cabrils (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the review and the clear pointers on Draft:Mike Arnold. As you suggested, I have posted the three best sources and the criteria (WP:BASIC/WP:GNG) on the draft's talk page, added a connected-contributor declaration there to accompany the one on my user page, trimmed further per WP:PROMO, and resubmitted. I would be grateful for a reassessment when you have time.

~~~~ Surferjeff25 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Surferjeff25,

Thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to let you know that I'm running The Asia-Oceania Destubathon in November. £2000 (about AU$3,796.66) in prizes. It would be great to see content improved for Australia and the Pacific region as part of this. I had hoped the Wikimedia Australia chapter could put up prizes for most destubs by territory/state to reinforce the prizes, but at present it's a prize for Australia and a few other areas. Sign up if interested, I'm sure there are a lot of stale old Australia articles needing destubbing! If it is a success, perhaps next year we could do something specifically for Australia or regional Pacific. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Surferjeff25 (talk · contribs)
  • Mike Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Mike Arnold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Cabrils,

Thank You for your attention to my efforts to understand and conform to the platform policies. I am not an expert by any means. And there is potential COI, which it looks like has been appropriately noted in my account/page notes.

May I take some time here and there out of your busy schedule to help understand how best to proceed? Navigating Wikipedia from the submission side is a new educational experience for myself. I am invested in making sure everything is done to standards.

Thank You!

Kindest Regards, Jeff Gibbs

Surferjeff25 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff (@Surferjeff25),

Happy to help. Speaking from experience, it certainly can feel a bit overwhelming at first. The best way forward to get some assistance would be for you to post on the Wikipedia Teahouse where helpful editors keep an eye out to lend a hand to those like yourself seeking guidance.

All the best with it. Cabrils (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am very sorry to bother you, and I'm sure that you're busy, but I checked what WP:PROMO was and I wasn't aware my edit fell into one of the categories within this. What my intention was - to simply provide the world with more true, factual information about the footballer. I am honestly trying to help the Wikipedia community. HythosFromNottingham (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply