• 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of Slot English Series On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paste the entire draft here. I've collapsed it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Don't let Waxworker was removed & delete at Draft:List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia). Waxworker Please open from the lock on List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia) 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what, if anything, you're asking, but there already exists an article on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing (and other interested editors), I believe the IP is upset because editor Waxworker removed unsourced content that they wanted included in the article. The article is semi-protected for persistent disruptive editing so they cannot re-add the unsourced content. Definitely a novel way of approaching the situation. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your deciphering skills are more advanced than mine... DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, I spent most of my career working with academics in the medical field...if you thought doctors' tendency to abbreviate in awful handwriting was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aruns012 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Aruns012/ChargeMOD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why The Page Has Been Removed Aruns012 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruns012: the page hasn't been removed (whatever that means); this draft has been rejected, and is awaiting speedy deletion, as non-notable and promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 4everbg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Petia Koleva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am doing something wrong with the citations, but I cannot understand what. I add citation sources, I have References at the bottom, yet I am not citing properly and any help is welcomed :) 4everbg (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4everbg the citations are proper, but you'll need to add more. As your draft is about a living person, we need citations for all statements. Currently the entire "Personal life" and parts of the "Early life and education" sections are unsourced. It is also unclear how she meets our notability guidelines for people. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! 4everbg (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ouill (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:François Jaeger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasons for the rejection. The page Notability_(academics) says that for academics, secondary sources on their bibliography are may not exist (this would typically be the case for a person who died when internet was in its early stages), and are typically not required. Instead, it must be clear that the contribution of the academic to their field should be significant. Here the academic had 2 different special volumes dedicated to his memory shortly after his death, with well-known international experts in 2 different fields contributing to the volume. This is really a clear, concrete sign of the impact of the researcher.

I haven't mentioned in the article that he was an editor of Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, one of the top journals in combinatorics, during several years and until his death. Should I add it ? I don't have an online reference for that (the journal does not record his former editors), but editors appear on the cover of all physical volumes so it is easy to check if your have access to the physical volumes. Ouill (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouill: I think it's debatable whether those memorial publications are enough proof that he meets WP:NACADEMIC #1; perhaps, perhaps not. Therefore, if he was the chief editor of the journal you mention, then it is certainly worth including in the draft, as that sounds like it would directly satisfy NACADEMIC #8. We do need to see evidence of that, though; it isn't enough to say that evidence can be found somewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Ouill (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BlueRoses13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Linda Rabbitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello editors,

On July 7, my draft for Linda Rabbitt was rejected:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Linda_Rabbitt

The same day, on my Talk page, I asked the responding editor to clarify his objections, while I provided additional support, at length. He did not respond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BlueRoses13#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Linda_Rabbitt_(July_6)

On July 17, I followed-up with the editor on his Talk page. On July 18, he said they'd get back to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SafariScribe#Can_you_help_me_understand_why_you_rejected_my_draft_for_Linda_Rabbitt?

It is now July 25, and I haven't heard back.

I'm reluctant to ping this editor again; I don't want to be a pest, especially since he is super busy elsewhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SafariScribe

Yet I remain in the dark and eager to contribute. Any chance another editor can take a look? I'd be grateful for your take.

Thank you kindly.

Sincerely, BlueRoses13 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

If the other editor is busy, they will likely get around to you when they can. Please be patient.

You have basically summarized Linda's resume, and not independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of her, detailing what makes her a notable person as Wikipedia defines it. That she runs a large company isn't sufficient- you need to have sources that discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about her. Does she run the company with a unique business strategy? Had a particular personal influence on the construction industry in the Washington area? Something like that. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Many thanks for your speedy reply and for clarifying the difference between "declined" and "rejected"; I was unaware of this distinction.

As to Linda's importance, here are 3 quotes that clarify her notability — I think the first speaks directly to your question as to whether she's influenced the construction industry:

1. She is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow).

2. She is ”one of the most influential people in Washington area business” (The Washington Post).

3. She is “one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian).

Does this help?

Thank you again.

BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueRoses13, you aren't covered in the dark and I am sorry for not following up. My analysis for declining the draft was that, while she owns a company, her style and biography shouldn't be inherited only from being the CEO and founder of it—Rand. Entrepreneurs are sometimes difficult to establish notability, but here's a helpful analysis to help you further. Don't think that the personal life and background offers notability. No, everyone can be educated even in a notable school and get a publication for that. Your interest should be a) Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand b) Being the CEO can be notable but not an assurance. Is their any unique way she handles the industry?—independent evidence of sources—lacking promo and advertorial contents c) Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines d) Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand e) When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies. These are my analysis and another editor can object or suggest otherwise. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe Thanks so much for your detailed analysis. I’m most grateful for the time you took to identify these specifics. Let me see if I can respond.

a. Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand

I think she satisfies WP:BIO for two reasons.

First, she is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow). Specifically, she's one of the only female CEOs in the construction industry (The Washington Post), and the company she founded and runs is D.C.'s largest, woman-owned construction contractor (The Washington Post).

Second, she is "one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian). The Washington Post calls her “one of the most influential." Specifically, she’s served on the boards of — and, in some cases, chaired — what are generally regarded as the two most influential business groups in the nation’s capitol: the Federal City Council and the Greater Washington Board of Trade. And she chaired one of 12 regional banks (Richmond) which make up the Federal Reserve System.

c. Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines

Yes indeed! In 2016, Linda, her philosophy, and her success were profiled in a Harvard Business School case study. HBS case studies are big deals.

Similarly, the Washington Post profiled her success in both 1998 and 2002.

Another profile comes from the Washington Business Journal (Peter Kaplan, “In a hard-hat world, she’s a success by anyone’s standards,” Washington Business Journal, December 16-22, 1994, page 18). This one is not online, but I can share a PDF if you’d like.

d. Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand

Check out this article in the New York Times that highlights Linda's role in financing an executive education program, at George Washington University, to teach women how to be corporate board members. See also this profile in the New York Times that tells Linda's life story.

e. When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies.

Yes, she’s served on the boards of directors of — and in some cases chaired — entities that each have their own Wikipedia pages:

-Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

-Willis Towers Watson

-Children's National Medical Center

-The Economic Club of Washington, D.C.

Also, she's been the president of the Washington chapters of Commercial Real Estate Women and the International Women's Forum.

Finally, she's received various recognitions from entities that each have their own Wikipedia page:

-In 2016, the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans named her “lifetime member.”

-In 2008, the nonprofit youth organization, Junior Achievement, inducted her into the Washington Business Hall of Fame.

-In 2012, the National Association of Corporate Directors named her a Director of the Year.

-In 2018, Commercial Real Estate Women gave her the inaugural Joseph Stettinius Jr. Leadership Award, which recognizes a leader in the real estate business.

I've incorporated the above details (with the exception of the last 4 recognitions) in Linda's draft. What do you think?

Thank you again for your help.

Sincerely,

BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Artistdrdebasis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Debasis Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a new Wikipedia editor and asking help for publish the said article. I could not understand the problems. Please help for further processing. Artistdrdebasis (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistdrdebasis: your draft is completely unreferenced, and provides no evidence that the subject is notable.

Also, note that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anshley Raggoo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Spine Footwear - Say hello to good posture! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What should I do for Wikipedia Users has access to this information? Anshley Raggoo (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshley Raggoo: This draft has been rejected, is awaiting speedy deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion, and will not be considered further. What is your connexion to Spine Footwear? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, "spine footwear" sounds horribly uncomfortable and a tad macabre. --bonadea contributions talk 19:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Artlin2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chitra Ramanathan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding review for submission. Aside from Instagram, please note and check under References on the draft page "Chitra Ramanathan" for verifying different publications by different art-related and art industry sources, including interviews and biographies written on the artist. Artlin2 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Artlin2 Fixed your link, it needs the "Draft:" portion to work. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and press releases do not contribute to notability, as they are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please define conflict of interest is, and secondly what would define independent sources for this article's re-submission by Geoffrey Lane. The subject of the article will not be re-submitting it, and so who would be? Artlin2 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artlin2, you can find more info about conflicts of interest at the page linked on your draft: WP:COI. In short, if you personally know Ramanathan, you are likely to have a conflict of interest. We are asking, basically - how do you know her?

Independent sources are sources that have been created without any connection to the subject. For example, an interview is not independent because the interviewer has spoken directly to the subject. On the other hand, a book about the Tudor dynasty is definitely independent as the author is writing solely because of their interest in the topic.

Does that help at all? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. The page was created by some wiki writers in 2022. So my question who would be identifying individual subjects for the written, as I will not be writing or editing. Artlin2 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Upcoming programming Slot English Series On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The English Series On 2 slot is shown every Friday - Sunday, at 8:00 pm.

2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, please stop creating and submitting drafts related to this topic [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

We know you want to add programs to List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia), but this is not the way to do it. You are wasting your own time as well as the time of volunteer reviewers. Please use the talk page of the article to request the edits you want, and remember to provide reliable sources. If you continue submitting drafts like this, you are likely to be blocked. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Xuexi8823 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Raphaela Gromes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've written it repeatedly. But my writings were always rejected. I used reliable secondary sources as much as possible. I am really confused that reviews always just demand so-called reliable secondary sources', but they don't mention which quote or part had problems. It would be helpful if you pointed them out. Thank you in advance. Xuexi8823 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xuexi8823, sorry you've been waiting a while for a reply.

I'll start by saying that @Cabrils has given you some great advice in the comments on your draft already. Working your way through those suggestions would be a great start. You especially need to answer, on your talk page, the question as to whether you have a conflict of interest - this is extremely important. You should also not resubmit the draft until the issues Cabril raised have been addressed, or you run the risk of the draft being rejected on the grounds that you are unable to improve it and thus it will never be accepted.

To give you an idea of which sources are useful to you and which are not, I'll go through the first few and then you'll hopefully be able to work through the rest! Cabrils has already linked you to the relevant requirements for sources, so I won't repeat the links. As a reminder, if a source isn't reliable, independent, and significantly covering the subject, it does not establish notability. You need all three criteria met for each source you are using to show that Gromes is notable.

Source 1 (Frankfurter) is an interview with the subject, so it is not an independent source.

Source 2 (Wegotmusic) is also an interview, see 1.

Source 3 (Musiktage Mondsee) comes from a company she performed for, so it is not independent.

Source 4 (Deutscher) appears to be advertising her as a performer, so it is not independent.

Source 5 (RSI) tells us she won an award, which is perfect as verification, but it's too short to establish notability. I'm going to assume you only wanted this source to demonstrate she won the award, which is totally fine to do.

At this point I decided to skip forward and check only the sources that looked most likely to be notable, which were:

Source 15 (The Strad) is another interview with her, and primarily about her cello, so it's not independent and not significant coverage.

Source 16 (Violin Channel) is also about her cello, so it's not significant coverage.

So far I don't see any sources that look likely to be usable; I think you should probably cancel the current resubmission (so the draft isn't declined again) and go on a hunt for more sources. Remember that interviews don't help establish notability, and if she worked for or with a company then their site won't help either. Best wishes with finding some great sources, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @StartGrammarTime ,

Thank you for your feedback.

But I decided to give up writing the article because I realized that I would not be able to continue writing it and using quotes based on your advice.

After spending approximately 20 hours writing the article and searching for sources to satisfy the reviewers' requests as much as possible, I am now completely exhausted due to some rejections and too strict demands.

I don't think it's possible to find the quotes they require. I'm truly disappointed that my effort was wasted. But perhaps my prediction was too optimistic to write the article to satisfy the demands.

I tried to write the article to contribute to classic music lovers around the world, but I am absolutely tired to continue writing.

But again, thank you for your advice. I really appreciate it.

Best regards,

Xuexi8823 Xuexi8823 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuexi8823, I'm sorry to hear this is the case. Unfortunately, a lot of people - a lot of subjects in general - aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, so it can be very frustrating to spend so much time working on a draft that doesn't really have a chance. Writing articles is the hardest thing to do in Wikipedia, and writing articles about a living person is the hardest of all. One last piece of advice for you is to read WP:BACKWARDS - this is how most new editors try to write an article, and I think you might have written your draft this way. Look for sources first; that way, if you don't find suitable sources, you won't waste any more time and effort. There are subjects I think really deserve an article, but I just can't find good sources and so I'm waiting until someone independent notices them and writes about them. Sometimes it's simply too soon.

I hope you stick around to edit articles, or come back to do so if you need a break right now. We have so many articles in need of a helping hand, and editing is much easier than writing a new article! You are always welcome to come and contribute as much or as little as you like to improve Wikipedia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Asyrofazman (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wan Muhammad Asyrof Bin Wan Azman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I good person Asyrofazman (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asyrofazman, I am sure you're a wonderful person, but you are not notable by Wikipedia standards - and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shivaji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

tell me where i done mistake

2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please log into one of your accounts and ask again? This whole thing is getting a bit silly, with multiple drafts, multiple user accounts, etc., and we need to start sorting out this mess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:List of Support Emulator Games PC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yes 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi its my first article .can you tell me my mistake in this article SONYBIJI (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SONYBIJI: assuming you mean User:SONYBIJI/sandbox, this was previously declined and subsequently deleted as promotional, and this time declined as blank.

What is your relationship with this 'Centre for Research on Cyber Intelligence and Digital Forensics (CRCIDF)'? I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nikolaos Divinis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there please guide me so i can understand the issues that came up with the article i wrote so i can fix them because i cannot understand where is the problem. Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just answered this on my talk page. Please don't ask in many places, it just causes extra work and confusion. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arafatislamontor (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Arafat Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my bio data was rejected? and how can i add myself on wikipedia? Arafatislamontor (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your 'bio data'(that's a weird way of saying autobiography) was deleted because it was pure self-promotion.
2. You don't. You are likely not notable, and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mtrexm (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John SantaLucia, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'm hoping to clarify why this draft was declined. I cited several peer-reviewed publications. Is it just a formatting issue? Any help would be much appreciated, thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtrexm: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that corroborates it or (failing that) removed outright. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, so even things like where they went to school? I see several spots in the beginning now that could use citations if that is the case. Thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even things like where they went to school, their birthday and where they were born, etc. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you, I will fix it. I really appreciate the help. Mtrexm (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Scholar.me.Squad (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:JOBSwithDOD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, with regard to my article's appearance seeming more like an advertisement than encyclopedia content, I am doing my best to model it from existing Wikipedia pages, such as this one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearanceJobs You'll note the similar style, similar citations, etc. I am happy to work on this article of mine more and do my very best to bring better scholarship to the article. I am trying to create a page that shows in an informative way the work of this business and how it is solving for a unique Department of Defense need, much the same way ClearanceJobs Wikipedia page shows how it does the same for the broader intelligence community. Please guide me so I can improve and meet standards of Wikipedia.

Most Kindly, Anthony Niles Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware in citing other articles to justify yours, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.

Your main issue is that you have no sources other than the company website. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. We don't want to know what the company says about itself, we want to know others say about it.

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. I have since scrubbed the document of any self referencing citations and have included proper citations that bring into the article good quality references rather than things that relate to the article. I will do further research and see what I can find as to other outside references and sources that have published about jobswithdod.com to support the article. Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Muhammas Asyrof Bin Wan Azman is birth at 28 June 2006.Wan Muhammad Asyrof is a political figure at PAS(Parti Islam Semalaysia).Her mother is named Maziah binti Majid and his father is named Wan Azman Bin Wan Yusoff.He now lived at Kampung Alur Mak Bah 23000,Dungun,Terengganu,Malaysia. Asyrofazman (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asyrofazman: nowhere in that is there a question. And Draft:Wan Muhammad Asyrof Bin Wan Azman has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further (in case you were wondering). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rasilshrestha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ram Krishna Bantawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking assistance for feedback on my recent submission. I would like to address the concern regarding the subject's notability and the coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

The entire article focuses on the author and provides extensive information. In addition to the online references provided, there are also significant offline sources that I have cited, including reputable newspaper articles. These sources offer in-depth coverage and are crucial in establishing the subject's notability.

Furthermore, I have previously communicated with a reviewer who declined my article for similar reasons. I had ermailed him through the reviewer's talk page email i found and provided attachments of all offline resorces i had in which he advised that the inclusion of offline sources is acceptable and can be used to support the subject's notability.

I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if there are any specific adjustments or additional information required to facilitate the approval of the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Rasilshrestha Rasilshrestha (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasilshrestha: you say you're seeking assistance, but it's not clear what sort of assistance you're asking for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your reply.

I was seeking assistance regarding my article not adequately being supported by reliable sources and that the 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.

I have added sources to some News Portal of Nepal various articles published in NepalKhoj , Kantipur , Annapurna Post etc. The articles i have added as refrences are about the author himself or his literature works in field of Nepali Literature.Also I had emailed Fade258 [e-mail address redacted] regarding the offline resources i had collected from old newspapers and also sent him the images as attachment and was told that i could add them to my article. I then resubmitted my article, it was again denied by SafariScribe with the same reasons.

So, can you please help me out.

Thank You, Rasilshrestha (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rasilshrestha:. Sorry for late response. I appreciate your work but still that draft needs reliable and independent sources to the subject. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nycamylee (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yi Jun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am still a beginner to Wikipedia. I did my submission for an Article for Creation. And I thought I have inserted enough Newspaper articles and the references from reliable sources. But it still gives me these messages.

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

We have a case of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT here. The foundation alone contains information with bare sources more than the biography itself. Please provide reliable sources citations to the content.

Honestly I don't quite understand what it requires more. Could you please advise me what I should to do pass the requirements?

Nycamylee (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycamylee: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Collins P Mabasa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Collins P Mabasa/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article has been rejected Collins P Mabasa (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Collins P Mabasa yes, it has, and it will be deleted soon. There is nothing to suggest that you are notable (another Wikipedia article and your company's website don't establish notability), and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself anyway. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyGadreal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tony Gadreel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't uploaded my article TonyGadreal (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected due to refusal to address the reviewers' criticisms of it and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyGadreal: Re-signing for botched ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SisterPhraed (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Greta Risley - Opera Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nearly all of my citations are from print newspapers and can be found online - I'm not sure why these are not acceptable. SisterPhraed (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SisterPhraed: From the looks of it you're missing required bibliographical information for the lot of them, and unnecessarily (and confusingly) merging multiple sources into one cite:

• Cite 1 is missing byline
• Cite 2 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources (each of these needs to be its own cite)
• Cite 3 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources (one of which is also missing a page number)
• Cite 4 is missing byline
• Cite 5 is a malformed URL
• Cite 6 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources (two of which are also missing page numbers)
• Cite 7 is missing byline and page numbers
• Cite 8 is missing byline
• Cite 9 is missing byline, edition, work, and page numbers (if a periodical) and author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and ISBN/OCLC# (if a book)
• Cite 10 is missing bylines and seems to be citing four separate sources (two of which are also missing page numbers)
• Cite 11 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources
• Cite 12 is missing bylines and seems to be citing seven separate sources
• Cite 13 is missing bylines and seems to be citing four separate sources
• Cite 14 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
• Cite 15 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources
• Cite 16 is missing byline
• Cite 17 is missing bylines and seems to be citing eight separate sources
• Cite 18 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
• Cite 19 is missing byline
• Cite 20 is missing byline
• Cite 21 is missing byline
• Cite 22 is missing byines and seems to be citing six separate sources
• Cite 23 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
• Cite 24 is missing publisher and ISBN/OCLC#
• Cite 25 is flat-out uncitable in the first place (we don't cite personal correspondence)
• Cite 26 is useless for notability (gov't document; this includes death certificates)
• We can't cite Find A Grave (no editorial oversight)

You need to separate out all your merged cites, find the required bibliographical information, and use {{cite news}}/{{cite book}} for each and every one of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise (sic) information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research."

I'm sorry, but this comment doesn't make sense to me - the article summarizes the information in multiple reliably cited sources - none of it is my opinion! Do I need to include names of the sources within the article rather than just in the endnotes? SisterPhraed (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SisterPhraed, addressing just this comment - can I suggest you have a look at the way some Featured Articles (best of the best) are structured, and use them as a pattern for yours? Here are two for female singers, both working around the same time as your subject: Marie Lloyd and Kathleen Ferrier. You can find tons more articles that would make a good reference for what to do with your draft at WikiProject Musicians' Featured Articles list. Wikipedia articles are set out in a fairly consistent way, so have a go at putting yours into sections as you see in the ones I've linked. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SisterPhraed (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I try to include more personal details, as in the other two articles, there are complaints - so we'll see! SisterPhraed (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SisterPhraed, the trick there is to make sure that you're citing a reliable source for everything you add. Remember to find sources first, and only add information to your draft if you have it in your sources!

Actually looking at your draft again - it's not a draft, it's been published! Congratulations! You've successfully completed one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, take a moment to be proud of yourself :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your advice and comments! SisterPhraed (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Majeed-ul-Hassan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Majeed-ul-Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

which reliable source or references you accepted for verification of article? Are you accepting youtube channels or dramas on youtube for references and interviews on it?

Majeed-ul-Hassan (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Majeed-ul-Hassan: We can only use YouTube as a source if (1) the video is produced by an agency we consider to have editorial oversight (such as al-Jazeera) and (2) that video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. We also have far stricter and MANDATORY sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons, and this includes autobiographies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Maham28 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gift Market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wrote a draft and would love the insight on what makes these references unreliable? Maham28 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

www.giftmarket.com.sg is a primary source so not independent, interviews with and content written by the owners is also not independent, so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SisterPhraed (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Greta Risley - Opera Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please delete this draft article - thanks! SisterPhraed (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that yourself by tagging it with {{db-g7}} at the top. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Artlin2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Chitra Ramanathan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A page titled above was written and published on Wikipedia in June 2022 where it was featured along with photos.

Two years later, it’s in a draft. Can a reliable source such as esteemed Wikipedia writers re-publish it. Artlin2 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Chitra Ramanathan

Previously on AFCHD: [7]

@Artlin2, I see submitting this draft was one of the first things you did as a Wikipedia editor. Have you worked on this draft before? If not, how did you find it?

Could you also please tell us how you know Chitra Ramanathan? You have been asked this before but did not answer. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear StartGrammer,

In response, Chitra Ramanathan is publicly noticed for over 25 years into the present period by varied sources through features on different art related websites, articles and reviews. Earlier this year (January 2024) the artist was recognized with the International Tagore Award.

Secondly, the review was submitted upon direction by Wikipedia editor Geoffrey Lane.

However, should the references including that are featured in the Reference section on Wikipedia/the draft still not meet criteria, please delete the article. Thanks again. Artlin2 (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artlin2: This does not answer the question. Your draft will not be accepted until you disclose how you know the subject. C F A 💬 00:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that upon rereading the previous discussion, it seems to me that Artlin2 has not edited the draft under their current username and in fact does not intend to edit the draft (based on '...[s]o my question who would be identifying individual subjects for the written, as I will not be writing or editing.'). If that is a misinterpretation, I would be very happy to be corrected. Otherwise, we may be wasting our time trying to help an editor who has no intention of accepting advice. I hope this is not the case. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this account was a sock of Amansharma111 (a large WP:UPE farm that has been involved with this draft). Vertacool and Asmbg3 are probably also involved in this. I'll hold off on filing an SPI for now in case they have any convincing evidence to suggest otherwise. C F A 💬 01:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bdbotaimtopro (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Borkhal M.L. school and college (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please add now this article authentic and real Bdbotaimtopro (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdbotaimtopro: can you please stop messing with this and the other similar draft. You're a blocked user, you are not allowed to edit at all. And these drafts have been rejected as non-notable. I've also issued you a final warning for removing AfC tags, but you keep doing it regardless. Expect to blocked sooner or later (hopefully sooner). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tizzythewhale (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sachin Jakhar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I this article is not approved, as it contains all sources Tizzythewhale (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizzythewhale that isn't a question, but the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. His bio on platforms where he teaches don't establish notability, and the draft is promotional in tone. Also, the draft contains 2 images you uploaded as own work; what is your relationship with him? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pemba.mpimaji (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gibana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added another source (governmental training handout for local officers) and the draft refers now to SIX published sources that are:

   in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
   reliable
   secondary
   independent of the subject

The topic has thus been dealt with in as much detail as possible. I cannot grasp why this entry is constantly being denied. It has more substance than a lot of other wikipedia articles. Pemba.mpimaji (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pemba.mpimaji: Under no circumstances are government-created sources secondary. If they did not originate from the government themselves, then they were compiled by them from information provided by the subject. We can't use ResearchGate (no editorial oversight); cite the original paper and not the mirror of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pemba.mpimaji, the draft was rejected a week ago - that means you cannot submit it again, as the reviewers think it's clear that the topic is not notable by Wikipedia standards. In case you want to try to write a draft on another topic, I'll quickly analyse your sources. I strongly recommend you spend more time working on other articles before beginning another draft, though.

Source 1 and 3 are government documents; they are not secondary, and not independent of the subject.

Sources 2 and 6 are PhD theses; these should only be used with caution as they are often primary sources and we don't know how reliable they are. ResearchGate, as Jeske says, cannot be used at all; 6 mentions gibana only in passing, and so is not significant coverage.

Source 4 is a World Bank report and does not discuss gibana in any meaningful way, so it is not significant coverage.

Source 5 is one I cannot access, but even if it's a usable source it is not enough by itself.

I hope this helps you in future source finding, and in the meantime I wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Birth65 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kevin Rumley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi- I am new to Wiki. My first submission was denied and sent back for editing. I was wondering how to see what changes/edits need to be made. I cannot locate the suggested edits.

Birth65 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 This appears to be an unusual decline. There is no rationale given. I will look further at this 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance. It is greatly appreciated. Birth65 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 I have reverted the decline as vandalism, and warned the editor as to their behaviour, I'm sorry this has happened to you, it is an abnormal experience. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel competent to review this effectively. My annoyance at the vandalism has affected my clear-sightedness on this draft. Perhaps someone else will look at it "early" as a compensation to Birth65 for their experience. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent I greatly appreciate your support. That was very kind and supportive of you. May I ask, should I return to the edit page and click "submit" again? I apologize for the inconvenience. Birth65 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 I reverted it to the "already submitted state" so it has returned to where it should be. Even after submission you are able and allowed to continue to improve it wherever you can.

Thank you for your comments. I feel I was neither kind nor supportive, but simply acted as I hope and expect any editor here to do on behalf of any other editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent That is good to know. And leaves me appreciative of the excellent standards Editors hold themselves to on this platform. Birth65 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birth65 we are fallible because we are human, but we try very hard to get it right. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Zelnikov (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Valeri Frolov (physicist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In accordance to the referee request I corrected and added very reliable references to the sources, however the article was rejected anyway. I don't see what is wrong now. Zelnikov (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelnikov: what is wrong now is that there are seven sections in this draft, and only one of them ('Research') is referenced. This would be problematic in any article, but is totally unacceptable in one on a living person (WP:BLP). Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Futbalove.talenty (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Michal Hrdlička (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I dont know how to publish this Wikipedia page Futbalove.talenty (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. It is competely unsourced, and no indication of notability has been given. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, it's highly recommended that new users first learn about the process by reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. You will also increase your chances of success by first spending much time (months if not years) editing existing articles, to learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vivekcreator96 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aazhi (short film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a film information page, otherwise suggest the edits Vivekcreator96 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "film information pages" here. We have articles about films that meet our definition of a notable film. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a film page, not destroying wikipedia in any way Vivekcreator96 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. No one has said you are "destroying Wikipedia". The film simply does not meet the criteria for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOHARM. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ckeller1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Current Digest of The Russian Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seeking advice on how to improve the neutral tone of this article. Seeking review of citations (which I think I improved before I resubmit.

Multiple editors have requested the article be written more neutrally, however I am unsure how to accomplish this. Ckeller1 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckeller1 I have left a comment on the draft. The remaining issues are solvable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I will check it out! I appreciate your help! Ckeller1 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rp.lp1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adial Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was the Adial Pharmaceuticals page declined? Rp.lp1 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if all the references are either routine business announcements, or just mention Adial in passing: not one of them, from its title, appears to be an in-depth piece about the company. Without several such sources, the draft does nothing to establish that the company is notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aasiea (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mahgul M. Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to add paragraphs about her life but, im not sure how to type it in the edit source area

Aasiea (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aasiea, can I suggest trying in Visual mode? Look on the top right of the box where you can put text etc, there's a picture of a pencil. If you click that you can choose your mode. Visual might be easier for you.

You should also read the page on how to cite sources, because you will need to make sure you've cited all the information correctly before the draft can be accepted. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• HASSAN YUSUF SHEHU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Saran Shuka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why this page is declined? HASSAN YUSUF SHEHU (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HASSAN YUSUF SHEHU: The English-language Wikipedia has no use for content that is not in English. Try putting this on the Hausa Wikipedia instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hwikipedianuk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Big Brother (British TV series) series 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this should have been accepted. It would be a stub article, but it is standard these are created for Big Brother series and it can be added to over time. Hwikipedianuk (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create a stub, you should do so directly, though it would be at risk of deletion or being moved back to draft. To pass this process, you need to do as the reviewer pointed out. Even a stub needs to meet certain minimum requirements. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jgalloway035 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ch'ilsong 칠성 七星 (Chilsong) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not understand how it is contrary to wikipedia. Please help

 Jgalloway035 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgalloway035: This looks like a short story/retelling of a myth. An article on a myth/fable that's just regurgitation of it serves no encyclopaedic focus; you need to have sources that contextualise and analyse it if there is to be an article on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Zelnikov (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Valeri Frolov (physicist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added inline citations on the reliable outside sources (not wikipedia) in all sections. However a new submission was also rejected for the reason: ... the draft needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria.

In fact the academic criteria 5. "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement"

is definitely satisfied: Prof. Valeri Frolov helds a distinguished named professor appointment at the University of Alberta, (Canada) -- Killam Memorial Chair Zelnikov (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewer @SafariScribe: any comments? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing, thanks for the ping. @Zelnikov, your draft may meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF but it isn't properly referenced. Those guidelines as presumably impactful meaning that the person may be notable and doesn't give full assurance of notability. We follow the general guideline. In your draft, which is also a WP:BLP, there seems to be an undue weight if the "early life and education", one of the most vital part of this article type is not sourced. The question is, where did you get those information? The sources you provided also were static website url example [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. For me I see that as gaming the source, when you will cite only the url address. It might have been an error somewhere, and that, you should correct. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rhaenyra Targaryen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Can I have a different editor? The reasons for not accepting my request aren’t very constructive or prudent. I have referenced everything properly. If a paragraph seems largely unsourced it’s because the following paragraphs are from the same source and have the reference at the end of it. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisha2037: We would need out-of-universe sources (anything GRRM writes would be a primary source as she originates from his works) that discuss the character, their reception, and their cultural impact in order to even consider having an article on them. Mere reports on who her actor is isn't enough to justify an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that explains this better. However, I based how this article is written on how other GOT characters were written and all of them, yes all of them, have primary references in their articles. Where should I put secondary sources?? Lisha2037 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisha2037: Ideally in a section discussing how the character was received by critics (both literary and television) and their overall cultural impact, as that is what we're looking for as far as articles on characters go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I added secondary sources to various sections including the storyline parts. Can you lease review this and let me know what you think. I would prefer a different editor than the last one. Lisha2037 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisha2037: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will get feedback when a reviewer comes along to assess it. (That reviewer may be a different one, or it may be the same as before.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minhuaty (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DK (South Korean singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi major changes has been made into the articles. If there is anything needed to be revised, please do indicate. I will be actively monitoring and editing until it is publish. Minhuaty (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. If you have made fundamental changes to the draft that address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fabrixio77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Island of Roses, Tragedy in Paradise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I would like support in getting the page approved Fabrixio77 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrixio77: could you please be more specific, what support do you need? Please study the decline notice and comments carefully, they (incl. the links they contain) explain what you need to work on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dsfreeform (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Josh Hager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I understand the submission was declined due to the lack of significant sources. I provided coverage by publications, radio stations, record labels, and AllMusic. Hager is the only active member of the band Devo without a Wikipedia page, just looking to close the gap with a simple page. Is there anything else I can do with the references provided? Thanks for your help. Dsfreeform (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dsfreeform We don't have "simple pages" that merely document existence. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet the relevant criteria, in this case, WP:MUSICBIO. His notability seems to be tied to his work with the band- he would only merit a standalone article if he has a significant solo career as a musician, or if he meets the broader notable person definition. You don't seem to provide sources that demostrate either. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To provide an example, Paul McCartney merits an article not because he was a member of The Beatles, but because he had a significant solo career outside of his work with The Beatles. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I added a few more references that speak to his credits as a producer and engineer, which is more significant than his career as a solo musician. Dsfreeform (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nycamylee (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yi Jun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have inserted newspaper articles and the Seoul Metropolican Government's official website's citations and thought they are quite trustworthy and reliable sources that can be easy to be verified. I have inserted newspaper articles and government published articles.

But I am still getting 'I need to provide more reliable sources' I have no idea what to, or how to add more reliable sources than adequate Newspaper articles and government issued articles. Please help. Please show some examples of how I should insert more to meet the requirements rather thatn just keep saying "you need to provide more reliable sources". Please Nycamylee (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nycamylee It's not necessarily that you need more sources, you need better sources; independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this man and show what makes him a notable person. That he is descended from the former Korean royal family might make him notable, if independent sources significantly write about this point. He also seems to have a business career, but the only sources you provided merely document his activities, not what makes him important/influential as a businessman. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycamylee: also, there is a lot of unreferenced information, with several paragraphs without a single citation. Articles on living people require comprehensive citations throughout; see WP:BLP. It may not therefore be a case of adding more sources, but citing the existing sources (assuming that's where all this information came from) more frequently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aimzieslol (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Big Brain Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Howdy, this is the submission rejection:

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 provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

I provided all the sources I could find *and* gave as much context as I could.

Is there a better way to do this? Should I ... write more? What I also don't understand is beyond the web page and Spotify there aren't any other sources.

Advice/help appreciated. Aimzieslol (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimzieslol: all this short draft tells us is that such a podcast exists. WHat makes it notable enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia? What have third party sources said about it, and its significance, impact, etc.? In short, why should we take note? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the "whys" of its existence pre-loaded with bias, though? What I'd like to do is present factual information of what it is, what it's doing, topics talked about, etc.

IMO, "why" it exists would mean I have to put some sort of judgment on it instead of letting it speak for itself.

As a n00b, I could be wrong ... Aimzieslol (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimzieslol You have discovered the "Hurdle of Notability" which any topic must leap in order to be considered for an article here. That something exists does not mean it is notable. That something is interesting does not mean it is notable. I exist and I believe I am interesting, but no article on me will ever exist becaise I do not pass our notability criteria.

So it is with your topic. It exists and is (probably) interesting. What has not yet happened is notability. To achieve that it must in and of itself, attract the attention of others independent of the topic who will write significant coverage about it in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the topic. At that point there is a string probability that it will achieve an article here.

No-one has asked why it exists. That have asked you to prove that it is notable in a Wikipedia sense. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TY, "hurdle of notability" makes more sense than, "insufficient context" or "adequately supported." I did read through "Notability" article but it didn't click for some reason. Thanks, everyone. Aimzieslol (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimzieslol: granted, it could have been declined explicitly for notability. The review tool only allows for two decline reasons, and when there are more than two valid ones, it's not always easy to choose. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gabriel601 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kim Oprah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aside being among the housemates in a Notable TV reality show which is Big Brother Naija season 8. From the references on google about her, does she meets WP:GNG on that? Gabriel (……?) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft on Kim Oprah was deleted back in April, but as a rule you need to prove that a reality-show contestant is notable outside of the context of the reality show as they are designed specifically to flanderise and aggravate their contestants in the name of conflict and ratings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but as a rule you need to prove that a reality-show contestant is notable outside of the context of the reality show as they are designed specifically to flanderise and aggravate their contestants in the name of conflict and ratings. I know about that and I have done some Google research but not sure if I should go ahead creating. It shouldn't look like a waste of time, reason I needed another editor to check on some google search to see if the Draft is worth creating.--Gabriel (……?) 18:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601 If you already think it may be a waste of time, please trust your instinct. There is more than enough other stuff to do here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You right. Kudos to you. Gabriel (……?) 19:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shotgun willy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why is the Wikipedia page down is it because it has the word nsfw or because my sorce is the only place to get information about him 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected and will not be considered further because you have zero usable sources; we cannot cite website homepages as they have no context for the claim(s) they're being cited for. We also wouldn't cite anything the subject has any direct control over anyway, including their own website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

isn't wikipeda a online encyclopdia its for information not for story's that's all info we have on him my team stalked him for Weekes paparazzi stuff 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop power-posting sections and edit in the section already about your draft. We require sources, full-stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your team stalked him for Weeks? That's illegal, and original research. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Grimerera (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David McDonald/Playwright, "Ella The Ungovernable" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to change the title of this article to merely Ella The Ungovernable. Is it possible to change the subject line of a draft? Grimerera (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grimerera: Draft titles are, at best, provisional. When and if it is accepted the reviewer will move it to an appropriate title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadams-333 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Celiac.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to understand which sources are the issue with my article. There are a number of reliable, secondary sources used, but are you referring to the "Features" section where the sources link to the Celiac.com website?

Reasons given for rejection: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Sadams-333 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadams-333: Anything hosted on Celiac.com is useless for notability (connexion to subject), as the implication is that it was written for the website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is very helpful, thank you. Would this also include links to webarchive shots of Celiac.com that, for example, demonstrate where the name change of our website happened in 1997, which is in the "History" area of our article? Sadams-333 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadams-333: Yes. You would need news articles to verify the name change. Also, "our"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've disclosed my relationship with the site. Sadams-333 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made your recommended changes and removed all self referring sources. Do you see any issues with existing sources? I've had to use the webarchive for some of them. Sadams-333 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do see issues (going to archive.com isn't one of them: that's perfectly fine, and sources don't even have to be online).

I haven't looked at all of them, but I've yet to find one that is not either written or published by celiac.com (not independent), based on an interview with Adams (not independent), or contains just a passing mention of celiac.com (no significant coverage). The closest to it would be the Tufts site, but that has only three paragraphs on celiac.com, and is just a review of what you can see in the website.

I don't see any pieces where somebody wholly unconnected with celiac.com has been sufficiently interested in the site to write an extended piece about it - not just what it looks like, but who created it, why, how, why it is important. Any article about celiac.com should be based at least 90% on sources like that.

As a presentation issue, please read about named references to avoid repeating the same source; but since the one you have repeated most often is a primary source it is of limited value and no value at all for establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wolfpack1999 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thinking outside the box and 5W1H (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

need advice on how to improve on the article Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfpack1999: This isn't an article, it's a self-help essay. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wolfpack1999 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Need to add a motivation , self-improvement/help company. what are the things to watch for? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need to add a motivation , self-improvement/help company. what are the things to watch for? Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfpack1999, promotional editing of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, and the neutral point of view is a mandatory core content policy. WP:NCORP is the stringent guideline governing articles about businesses and companies. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CoTangent (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pro-Lie Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I translated a German wikipedia article about a mathematical subject ( de: Pro-Lie-Gruppe) into English and wanted to submit it to the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pro-Lie_Group

Unfortunately, the submission was declined becauce 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.

My problem is that I think the article is supported enough by reliable sources (I know that is not a good argument, but it was enough for the German wikipedia). Furthermore, it is not a very controversial topic and all the definitions are pretty standard. Does anyone know how I should go on? All the best, and thanks for your help! CoTangent (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoTangent: I think this was correctly declined. Your draft cites only two sources, one of which appears to be a WordPress blog of some sort. Those sources are cited against two relatively minor statements in the 'Examples', with the vast majority of the draft unreferenced. We do need to know where the information comes from, so that it can be verified.

Whether an article on this subject and with these references exists in the German-language Wikipedia is their business, and has no bearing on its acceptability here, as each language version is completely separate with their own rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoTangent Please understand that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to ensure that the article they are translating for another Wikipedia meets the requirements of that Wikipedia.

You have only two sources; to pass this process, most reviewers generally look for at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the topic and its importance. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation! CoTangent (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leemhwiki12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • DRAFT Justin Kenardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I have updated the article as suggested. I've changed the format to academic bio and added in appropriate references. I am wondering if this is enough before I submit it again? Appreciate any help or suggestions, thank you. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemhwiki12: I have no concerns about notability, but there are still unreferenced statements which need to be supported. Even something relatively innocuous like "Kenardy completed a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in 1981 and Ph.D. in Psychiatry in 1989 from the University of Queensland" might cause someone to raise an eyebrow and think how do we know that's true... and the reader should never have the need to ask such a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rugantino73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marco Nica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning, despite the fact that the page complies with all the rules of Wikipedia, is not self-referential, and has encyclopedic value, I am unable to get it published. I have included all the required sources to enhance the content, making this page better than many others that are already present and published on Wikipedia. I find your attitude excessively hostile towards me and, above all, discriminatory. I urge you to publish the page without further disputes. Best regards.

Rugantino73 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rugantino73: this draft most certainly does not comply with "all the rules of Wikipedia", it breaks quite a number of them. And you have 'referenced' it mostly with pictures and links to Amazon. As it stands, this will absolutely not be published.

As for whether this is better or worse than other articles that may exist out there, is completely irrelevant. We do not assess drafts by comparison to other articles, but instead by reference to the applicable policies and guidelines.

And before you start throwing around accusations of discrimination etc., I hope you have solid evidence to back up such allegations, as otherwise you may find yourself sanctioned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find a common line. Your colleagues informed me that links to Amazon could be added without any issues, the page has been modified according to your indications, it was simpler at first. If you want the sources and those sources are on Amazon (it is a publishing house like the others), you will have links to Amazon. I can remove everything. Try to think that you are a free encyclopedia and that there should not be companies proposing the creation of paid pages. When a new page is submitted and is rejected because it does not reflect your publishing principles, that is fine, but those principles must also apply to other similar pages that are online; this is what I consider discrimination, and I do not think I should be the one to be sanctioned. Have a good day. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to find a "common line". If Amazon is the publisher of these books, they are clearly self-published vanity titles, that confer nothing in terms of notability. If Amazon isn't the publisher, it is acting as a retailer, and we don't cite shops as sources. In any case, even if Amazon were the publisher, you don't need to add spammy links to your draft, you can simply cite the books with standard bibliographical details.

It is not discrimination that we are declining your draft, when it is clearly not ready to be published, while sub-par articles exist among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) It is simply us applying objectively our policies and guidelines regarding what is acceptable for publication.

And one final point: be aware that if you resubmit the draft without any attempt at addressing the decline reasons, it may be rejected outright without the option to resubmit, because this signals your unwillingness and/or inability to develop it further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Hold on, what is your involvement in Draft:Marco Nica? It seems you've made exactly one edit to it. Are you working with, or operating also, the user account BearThatRun? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are two working on it: Rugantino73 and BearThatRun. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of works are a decoration, like images. The important part of any article is a summary of what people unconnected with the subject have published about them in reliable sources.

The important part of your draft - the biography - is almost unreferenced, and contains non-neutral language ("his passion for"; "original"; "famous").

You have almost certainly written this draft BACKWARDS, as new editors usually do if they attempt to write a new article before learning how Wikipedia works. First find your reliable, independent, sources, with significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). Then write a summary of what those sources say, not of what you know. If that adds up to an article, you can add a selected bibliography - preferably citing everything to independent sources, because if you can't find an independent source that talks about a work, why is that work relevant to an encyclopaedia article?

I don't know who told you that "links to Amazon could be added without any issues", but they were wrong. See WP:VENDOR for the limited circumstances in which commerce sites may be cited.

Rugantino73, and @BearThatRun: what is your relationship with Nica? If you know him (as suggested by BearThatRun's comment on the images "He gave them to me", then you should declare your conflict of interest.

Also, @BearThatRun, I have nominated both images for deletion, as you have not provided any evidence that the copyright holder has put them in the public domain. If the copyrighht holder (who is probably not Nica) has made that statement, it must be evidenced by them: see WP:donating copyright materials./ ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, I'm going to ask about the release of rights. Thank you! BearThatRun (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Río de las Ánimas (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Durango Hot Springs Resort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure why the citations are not worthy. There are several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums. Any advice? Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Río de las Ánimas: what do you mean by "several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums"? This draft has three citations, of two sources, and both sources appear to be newspapers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I didn't publish the changes. I've added a website for the Animas Museum. And I have a very old book, self-published by the old owners of the hot springs: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/trimble-hot-springs_leith-lende-bear/52117571/. Thanks for any advice and help. I'm a fan of Colorado hot springs and noticed the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hot_springs_in_Colorado has links to several hot springs that don't have pages or have really outdated info, like Trimble. Thanks again. Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Monniejaym (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kenyon Dixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have now submitted this twice and read everything about reliable sources. Can someone give more detailed feedback as to what is not reliable? Monniejaym (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]