User talk:Sophisticatedevening#top

Dear Sophia,

Thank you for making changes to my article. As long it does not get deleted, I am fine with any changes you make to it. I am willing to fix them each time you delete whatever should not be there. HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I am willing to accept that I am new so this may take months to go public as an article. HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:No worries, I'll swing by the draft in a little bit with more feedback, just make sure everything you write is in your own words to avoid copyright issues. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, thank you HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I fixed the article of today.com and said "today.com reports" and semi changed it to my words. HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi , thank you for leaving a note on my draft. I added more sources as you asked, but I am unable to exctract more information from the original description of the species because the publication is in Italian. I was recomended to expand the species list of Strongylosoma genus and almost every species I added does not have an article, so i wanted to make small starter articles for each of them so they can be grown by everyone. Is it alright , and is it better to always include at least 3 sources to begin this sort of small articles ? Antojien (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Of course, these articles are always welcomed. WP:NSPECIES has good guidance that you might find helpful for this. Generally, 3 sources are asked of any article to verify the information and prove notability. While English sources are preferred, there is no requirement that sources have to be in it so long as they are reliable, independent and secondary. Most articles start off as stubs, so don't worry too much about the length. I would also recommend checking out WikiProject Tree of Life if you're interested in these topics. Feel free to come back if you have any questions, good luck! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 02:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey Sophisticatedevening! Thanks for helping out at AfC. I came across some notices you left at User talk:MikeJanetta#Your AfC Submission has been moved and noticed you've been using Template:REVISIONUSER in lieu of your username. Which means that, at the time of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeJanetta&oldid=1280691767 your revision], your messages show correctly, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeJanetta&oldid=1280715670 when I edited it], my name shows up in place of where yours should be! This should be avoided, as it causes confusion for the user who received the message as well as future editors.

Are you manually copy-pasting Template:AfC move? If so, that's fine - but make sure to replace the "REVISIONUSER" parts with your username when doing so. You can also leave the notice with {{subst:Afc move}} which does that for you automatically. In case it'd be helpful, there's also a Draftify gadget available that a lot of folks working in AfC (me included) use that automates the notice-leaving process for these cases. ~Liance^talk 02:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, my bad, please disregard what I said above - I got confused viewing the template page instead of your notices. The issue was just that you didn't use subst: in front of the template. Make sure to include it when leaving notices in the future to prevent the username issue. ~Liance^talk 02:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Oh thank you for letting me know, that saved me a trip to the village pump. I saw that a few minutes ago and was baffled because the diffs didn't show any difference with the name change. I was manually typing the template and must have forgotten. Also thanks for letting me know that Draftify does that, I thought it only worked for mainspace. Cheers! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I was just as confused as you were, haha. Took me a couple of minutes to figure out what was really happening. Good thing we managed to get it sorted! ~Liance^talk 02:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

What sort of reference must I add to be accepted? I thought it was sufficient but according to your review it was not. Also thank you for reviewing so fast! Its tomukun (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Your 3 references are a google search, a fiverr link and credits at a small video game website. These are not enough to establish notability, as I have no idea what I'm looking for in the google search, fiverr is user generated and the credits do not provide significant coverage. Feel free to resubmit when you can find multiple reliable, independent and secondary sources for it and another reviewer will take a look. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Good evening,

Regarding your recent deletion of my article, I do not see why it should have been deleted. Please clarify with me.

Reasons:

It is already a page on the Czech Wikipedia.

He is a notable person.

There are many articles on Wikipedia like this one; why should this article be deleted?

If you could undelete or explain to me why it was deleted or what I could do to improve it, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Roc1233 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Roc1233 Don't worry, your draft was not deleted it is right here. I declined it because it only cites 2 sources, leaving a lot of unsourced information throughout. Don't give up, you have plenty of time to keep improving, there is no rush. Spend a few days researching more sources, and resubmit when you feel ready. Another reviewer will take a look at it and decide then. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::thank you i really appreciate your response Roc1233 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::do you know how many sources i need to cite? Roc1233 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no magic number, but all statements made need to have a source to back it up. Check out WP:YFA and WP:REFBEGIN if you still have questions. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::thanks Roc1233 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Sample Sanitarium - Wikipedia

I've added more sources to it carefully this time. The sources contain Fresno bee which documents history as it is being created. I don't know if this is a problem or not, but Fresno bee's Newpaper website wants you to pay before entering because of reasons with info stealers. But it has everything documented, even buildings with little knowledge to them. There are no articles like the ones on Fresno bee containing any information about this building. A lot of fresnans are already subscribed to this though. Latermon23 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Great, resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look at soon. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Okay. Thank you. Latermon23 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{anchor|20:58:12, 17 March 2025 review of submission by Userpb1978}}

{{Lafc|username=Userpb1978|ts=20:58:12, 17 March 2025|declinedtalk=Draft:CONEXEN}}

I'd like if someone could review my draft again. I provided references to independent newspapers with links. More than one. In the articles it is explained what the organisation does and also it links to independent awards won. I am not sure why I was told that it looks like an advertising. I is written very plainly without exageration and I provided the third party links. Thanks in advance

Userpb1978 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I usually do not review the same draft twice, you can resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look at it. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Shahanshahi Calendar - Wikipedia

I understand that you apparently don't review the same draft twice. However, as I'm a new member on English Wikipedia, could you please explain a bit more clearly what kind of citation is required? I’ve edited the draft again and added two direct citations from well-respected historical books. Also, there is already a Persian article on the same topic on Persian Wikipedia:

:w:fa:گاه‌شماری شاهنشاهی

I'm not sure if the draft was declined due to a lack of reliable citations or because the topic is considered not important enough to warrant an article based on those citations.

--Saĝaĉjo (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:I declined the draft as there were not enough reliable sources to establish notability at the time. 2 of the citations were commons photos to newspapers over 40 years old, and the Iran encyclopedia one was iffy. The BBC one was good, but it was not enough to prove notability. Feel free to resubmit when you are ready, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the answer, so now with adding two citation from two books it seems good. Thanks for your time Sophisticatedevening :) Saĝaĉjo (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Please help me understand why the article does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject. My reason for creating this article as a Wikipedia page is purely to alert and educate those who are interested in the advancements that have been made in aerospace. The article is not selling anything, so it is certainly not an advertisement. The subject is notable, the content is written from a neutral point of view, and refers to a range of independent, reliable, published sources.

I have gone out my way to ensure that the content is from people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject from reliable sources..TullaMelb (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:The draft is filled with WP:PEACOCK terms and is far from a neutral point of view. The draft focuses on what company offers and how it helps with statements like, {{Tpq|This technology offers a cost-effective alternative to satellites and low-altitude aircraft }}. The issue isn't the notability of the company, it is how the article is written. Feel free to resubmit when you are ready, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{anchor|18:32:59, 20 March 2025 review of submission by Millsy0303}}

{{Lafc|username=Millsy0303|ts=18:32:59, 20 March 2025|declinedtalk=Draft:Un_mot_pour_Kevin}}

I was wondering why you decided the article is not significant enough if it is simple a translation of an existing french language page. I can include more references, although there are already enough in the citations in my opinion. The video is well known throughout quebec and the phrase "bonne fete Keven" said to any Quebecer under 40 will generally elicit the response "continue comme ca" which is noted in a radio segment [https://www.fm1047.ca/audio/581687/bonne-fete-kevin-video-virale-qui-a-marque-le-quebec here] that I will include in the article.

The video is also cited in [https://urbania.media/fr/productions/kevin this documentary about the name Kevin in Quebec] as the turning point for the decline in popularity of the name Kevin in Quebec, which is referenced in one of Quebec's largest newspapers, Le Devoir, in [https://www.ledevoir.com/culture/ecrans/591362/ecrans-kevin-il-faut-qu-on-parle-des-kevin this article].

Millsy0303 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:The sources given do not support sustained and significant coverage of the video. All of the ones provided seem a few news articles on its 15 year anniversary. The documentary, radio segment and newspaper are only passing mentions, with the main focus of them on the name Kevin, not the video itself. French Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines on notability that are separate from here. I have no way to verify if it is well known throughout Quebec and if saying it will elicit that response, so if you can provide more sources with significant and sustained coverage of the video itself, that would help the article out a lot. You can always resubmit and another reviewer will look at it, good luck. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The cancellation of the article is not understood for the same reason, it should be implemented so that it is not ambiguous and has a section for people with the last name just like articles like hatz or hetzer 186.11.43.197 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:I declined the article because there is no reason to have a disambiguation page for articles that don't exist. If those articles were to be created then the disambiguation might be necessary, but they aren't right now. It doesn't help to have an index of redlinks in the mainspace. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::a little more time to create the articles in red 186.11.43.197 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, the article is declined not rejected, so if there is multiple pages created and a DAB is necessary to stop confusion, then it could be accepted. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::This article could be uploaded now the article is not in red Countet (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::You only have a single article, that does not need an entire disambiguation page. When you have more, you can resubmit it and another reviewer will look at it. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The article by mountaineer Anton Hetz had been created but the user SafariScribe rejected it because it was not necessary for Wikipedia

:::::::Draft:Anton Hetz (1830–1900), Austrian mountain guide and alpinist

::::::So they don't help much to implement things either. Countet (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The article is rejected, so I can't help you anymore. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My intention was to create an article about the people with the last name but it is impossible if they reject any request then we just have to settle for the poorly implemented page that only talks about the term with a single definition and an added person is very bad since anyone who sees it will think that the meaning of hetz is strictly Hebrew and that is not the case, it is a word from German and Hebrew and it also has another meaning in Austria but the last name is not related to the word, we must be clear in There is no relationship between the term and the surname since the surname is a nickname for Hermann and in individual cases of the Hetze (bird).

::::::::Hetz

:::::::This page is poorly implemented and confusing, they should put more definitions and not confuse the word with the surname Countet (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If you have questions about the rejection I would direct you towards the reviewer's talk page. If you think that the Hetz DAB is confusing then I suggest you be WP:BOLD and attempt to fix it. Good luck, but I cannot do anything more with this. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Sophisticatedevening, with great respect, I tell you, they do not want to solve it, they do not accept anything more than a very poorly implemented page and with that we must settle. Countet (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Just by checking the page you will find a lot of people's discontent but it must be left without any solution. Countet (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Again, not really my speed, sorry I can't be of use. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thank you, I wrote to the user be bold. I hope it helps me improve the article. Countet (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I found many references but added just the best ones. Anything else? R3bennett (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:None of the sources are independent of the company, and therefore do not count towards notability. Keep working on it and try to find different ones. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems rather odd to leave the result of the discussion with inconsistencies like:

• 2005 Swedish football Division 2
• 2005 Swedish Football Division 3

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:@BarrelProof I'll start working on moving those to lowercase Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::In that case I suggest to add a description of that action to the RM closing summary. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, apparently since the lowercase titles are redirects I'm gonna need to submit technical requests. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 16:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{anchor|18:46:48, 26 March 2025 review of submission by Johnsmackenzie}}

{{Lafc|username=Johnsmackenzie|ts=18:46:48, 26 March 2025|declinedtalk=Draft:Dalgety_Bay_Sailing_Club}}

I am not clear on why the submission isn't meeting the standards. I have external references, so is it the quality of those citations? Or is the subject too generic? Other pages eg :Royal Findhorn Yacht Club have a similar approach. Any guidance appreciated!

Johnsmackenzie (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:None of the sources provide enough significant coverage around the subject to evidence notability. Notability is required for all articles, and without it it cannot be accepted and moved. Keep working on it and finding more sources and resubmit when you're ready. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This article should have not been draftified that fast, considering that the last constructive edit occured minutes ago. Per the relevant guideline, articles should not be moved when there are major edits within an hour. I was also intending to move the article to draftspace as a COI issue (the author completely bypassed the AfC process), but I would do that after an hour of the last edit. So take care when moving the article to draftspace. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah I was thinking about that after I did it and was trying to figure out what I should do about it. That was a big mess-up on my part, sorry about that. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also @Liance I think you were assigned as my mentor when I started haha. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hey, that's pretty funny! Not sure if we interacted much previously, but it seems like you've managed to get the hang of things pretty fast, which is great. And, I'm always happy to see more folks doing draft review. It helps out for sure.

:::By the way, you're the top AfC reviewer this month. Thanks again for your efforts and keep up the good work. ~Liance^talk 22:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I have made changes in the links and tone of page, please approve it. Gautams742 (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Please approve my page, I have fixed it Gautams742 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Curator,

I created a page for DistroTV on March 31, but quickly rejected.  Can you please shed some light on the reason for rejection?  That would help me make better writing in the future.

I have added multiple reference links that are from 3rd party reviews of the product, that I believed to be independent and in-depth.  Is there any particular reference that is bad?  Or do you need more references?  Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DistroTV 2601:640:8003:5910:51D7:2F33:5F5C:BDD8 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:The sources given are not independent of the subject or reliable. Two of the five are from the company website, crunchbase is just an unreliable database of companies, and the other two only gave a short article that announced the company was launching, with no coverage after that. Therefore fails WP:NCORP at the moment. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::I see. I can remove the crunchable link because I didn't know it was deemed as unreliable. Do you suggest the I should not link to the company/product page itself? As a user, I normally find a link to the company/product useful but maybe it should not be a reference, but as a 'external link'? 2601:640:8003:5910:51D7:2F33:5F5C:BDD8 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::One or two external links to the company website is fine, but it does not contribute to notability. There needs be multiple independent, secondary and reliable, and they must show significant coverage of the company. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you very much! I modified the article according to your suggestions and resubmitted for review. Appreciate your time and help, have a great day! 2601:640:8003:5910:51D7:2F33:5F5C:BDD8 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sophisticatedevening, I have taken note that the draft of the article was refused because of the sources. But I didn't understand the reason. Is it because the sources are in French?

Thank you very much 89.2.157.193 (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:The draft was declined because it was not adequately supported by reliable, independent and secondary sources. Sources can't be from sites the company is affiliated with (i.e. company websites), that does not contribute to notability. Don't worry about the language they are in, that doesn't really matter that much. Keep working, and resubmit when you are ready. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your comments on another talk page, and I'm afraid to say I found your signature illegible. In the interests of accessibility, could you please change it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, do you think you could specify what is problematic about my signature? I can't really fix it without knowing what I need to adjust. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 10:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::I can't read the text, it's impossible to make out your username from it. I would guess this is a combination of using an obscure and small font. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I see. I'm just a little wary of making super dramatic changes to it like the font, do you think there is any other tags I could add to adjust it that are a little more easier to read? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I would get rid of the font entirely, and use the stock one. I don't want to pull rank but the behaviour guideline says "{{xt|Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read. As some users have vision problems, be conscious of color and contrast issues. If you use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities.}}" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Ritchie333 All right I think I found a reasonable solution. This is Garamond with italics, is this a little more legible? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I would suggest increasing the size. I have difficulty reading it, and was told by my ophthalmologist that my near vision is corrected to the near vision equivalent of 20-20 with computer glasses. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Having some trouble with the syntax for that right now so I'm gonna head over to w3 later and try to figure it out when I get a chance, but I'll try to make it work. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Testing this one, probably will be fine temporarily Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::upped to 1.2 em, removed bold Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've added references and detail to the new page I've suggested: Draft:Zero Hour (UK campaign). Would very much appreciate any additional feedback. :-) Isle of Islay (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:That is definitely a significant improvement. I don't have time to go through the 100+ new citations but I'll check prose. Detail is fine, but try to minimize their aims and goals and focus more on the company itself. MOS has a few issues like the bolded links, but those can be fixed later. Give a good once over for any WP:PEACOCK or weasel words as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also please read WP:OVERCITE, the quantity of the citations and how close they are makes the text look very cluttered as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't know what they were trying to do with the random titles, so I asked, and we now know less than we did before I asked. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:I still don't know what they were talking about, even if for some reason it was just a test or error and they were trying to move it back, then why on earth would they do it 11 times?? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, I have added additional sources from major publications like The Guardian and others that directly mention the subject. Bmpwoan58 (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Feel free to resubmit and another reviewer will take a look at it. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Sophisticatedevening, I would love some recommendations on writing an article for the ARC Prize (https://arcprize.org/). I think it's a great competition that should have its own wikipedia article. Would you help me out?

Manuelmao94 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Your current version of the draft does not portray the organization in a neutral point of view. Phrases in your current draft like, {{tpq|The competition aims to foster innovation, particularly novel approaches beyond simply scaling existing models like Large language models (LLMs), and promotes open-source sharing of solutions.}} highlight it in an overly positive light and in a promotional tone. Consider reading WP:YFA for pointers on how to write your first article. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's super helpful. Thank you so much! Manuelmao94 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for reviewing for AFC! Just a note, when you decline an AFC draft with the adv/npov declines, can you please also use the relevant notability decline? We don't want someone to spend a lot of time trying to make their draft sound neutral if the bigger problem is that there are no sources that establish notability. They'll just resubmit it and get frustrated when they end up getting a notability decline. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sure thing, thanks for letting me know! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Nico Cappelluti. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because See talk page, there are too many problems at the moment.

I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.

When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Ldm1954 I think something is wrong with the movetoDraft script, I actually never moved or created that one, it was made by 192.70.171.36 and approved by S0091. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::My guess: you are the earliest non-ip person so the script included you as the originator. I did not double check, my apologies. (I deliberately included S0091 in the notification chain as I think it was/is premature to accept the current article as there are too many structural issues, let alone unclear notability.) Ldm1954 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would also leave a note on the IP's talk page since they were omitted and they probably want to be in the loop. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Done, although whether that will reach them is not obvious to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey. I need you to explain something to me: the article has already been rejected twice, even though I've corrected everything you asked for, but the subject of the article - Prof. Michael Siegel - receives *countless* corrupted emails to his private email account, offering him to move the article to the main space without any problem at all, if only he would be kind enough to pay money. Is the English Wikipedia corrupted? The Turtle Ninja (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am going to highly suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning, there is an ongoing scam regarding exactly that. A real reviewer will never ask for any compensation to accept an article. Please email paid-en-wpwikipedia.org a copy of the message(s), and do not send them any money under any circumstances. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Courtesy link|Draft:Julian Gualtieri}}

Hi Sophisticatedevening, Nice to meet you. The above draft has been resubmitted again. I don't think any major improvement has been made. Just thought I would let you know! Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, it's an obvious new sock of User:Editor x45, I've removed the template and filed a new SPI report. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Might be worth sending to MfD at this point as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::No problem! Would you send it to MfD or do you want me too.

::While we are here, I also rejected this draft which you removed the copyright from. Was that unnecessary? Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, I personally like to wait for at least 2-3 notability declines before considering a notability rejection, but if it was obviously never going to pass WP:NBOOK then I'd say it's fine. I didn't do a source check there after I quick failed for the copyvio so it is a possibility. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I will remember for next time! Would Julian Gualtieri be eligible for G5 and salting (once the SPI case is closed)? Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No it wouldn't be for G5 since the sock didn't technically create it and it hasn't been repeatedly created. Ideally we would just wait either for someone else to pick it up or for G13, so I would just leave it. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi

You recently rejected my draft page “List of Essex T20 cricket records” on the grounds that it did not have reliable sources. Whilst there is nothing in the references section, each table has the its source listed as the website “CricketArchive”. This is the same as the page “List of Essex List A cricket records” which is already live, so I assumed this would be OK. Do I still need to add something to the reference section?

Thanks Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:The only source given is the CricketArchive, which gives no indication that it is vetted or reviewed by anyone. There is nothing else there to support the information, and therefore it is not adequately by reliable sources for me to verify the information. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi

::I’m not sure how to proceed now. What sort of sources can I use? Is there a list of “vetted or reviewed sources”?

::CricketArchive is given as a source for many cricket related Wikipedia pages.

::Thanks Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There's not really a comprehensive list of vetted ones since there are so many websites, but there is WP:RS/P for a list of sites that are not reliable, and WP:NPPSG for an expanded list. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Realised I didn’t include a link to the page I modelled mine on. This is it:

:::List of Essex List A cricket records Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection has a very specific meaning in that you cannot resubmit it. Since it was declined, you are free to resubmit it in the future. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for that clarification Cricketnerd99 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

So, i made an edit, on Moroccans where i added internal links to related Wikipedia pages, but it got Removed, so i edited it again and someone else reverted my edit.

I don't want to edit war but i think my edit is helpful and connects Wikipedia pages together as the numbers represent Moroccans on that country so it makes sense to show Moroccans on that country when you click on the link right?

Any suggestions on what i can do about it? Sugarcane juice (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:So first I appreciate the attempt to not edit war, it can be a very slippery slope sometimes. The first thing you should do is discuss on the article's talk page. There is a process called "bold, revert, discuss" that has some really good guidance on these situations. My advice is to make a new section on the talk page, ping the editors who reverted and explain why you think the links would be good for the article. I would also give WP:DISPUTE and WP:3RR a read for more information and some next steps going forward. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'll read the articles you mentioned and ping them on the talk page to talk about it and explain my points, thanks for your help! Sugarcane juice (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at my draft article on Laurens van der Maaten.

I'm new to article creation on Wikipedia and would love more specific feedback on how to improve the article.

Given that Laurens is the author of several technologies (t-SNE and LLaMa) that already have their own articles, I strongly believe that he is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. BigAppleTea (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:If the person is notable, then the article needs to show that through independent, secondary and reliable soures. That means no interviews, personal/company websites, etc. Right now the article does not show evidence that he is actually notable, and it needs those sources in the article if you can find them. Feel free to resubmit when you're ready, Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Understood! Another question - would you consider sources such as his highly cited scientific articles to be sufficient here? While Laurens himself keeps a relatively low public profile, his scientific contributions are clearly notable.

::I'm open to the idea that a scientist with several notable scientific contributions (that have their own independent wiki articles nonetheless!) is not considered sufficiently notable because of their low public profile, but that is something I would want you to be explicit about here.

::On a more meta note, one wonders if there should be some threshold of citations after which a scientist becomes sufficiently notable - If "widespread citation" is sufficient for proving the reliability of a source, perhaps it could also be sufficient for proving the notability of a scientist!

::Anyway, thanks for taking the time to help me with the first article I'm trying to create :) BigAppleTea (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It is possible that some of his contributions are notable, however that does not necessarily mean that he himself is notable. It doesn't really matter how cited or popular his scientific articles are in terms of notability, if the only things about him published online or otherwise are written by him, then it is likely that he isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::To be clear, none of the sources in the article I provided are written by him, though I do admit they are not as mainstream of sources as would be ideal.

::::Thanks for the clarity re: notability of science vs the scientist. I'll leave the article in draft format for now until more is published about him. BigAppleTea (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Just sharing a belated heads up that I replied to your feedback at Talk:Pan-Mass Challenge. I listed three proposed updates at the bottom of our discussion. Would love your eyes if you have a moment! Thank you kindly. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Those look good now, thanks for revising them. I'll try implement those later today when I get a chance, cheers. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks you again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Model Citizen. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #35. 750h+ 02:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Parasitic ant/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing the article Parasitic ant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. File:Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GGOTCC -- GGOTCC (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you've declined my Draft Article about the electronic music producer STRLGHT, I have rewrote the draft and added multiple sources. I hope its good now. If however you won't allow it, please explain to me what i did wrong, i will correct anything thats wrong as soon as possible. To8zljghvru (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Spotify is the only source cited, and it is not a reliable source, so I still do not see notability. I do not review the same draft twice however, so another reviewer will take a look at it and assess it when they get a chance. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't find any other sources, what sources should i use? To8zljghvru (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If you are unable to find any reliable sources for them, then they are likely not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, sorry. I'll just won't write any articles on wikipedia anymore. To8zljghvru (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::To8zljghvru: You're welcome to help improve existing articles, and this will give you the practice you'll need for your first article. {{tps|g}}— ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the encouragement! The TTS advice was really helpful btw. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your previous reviews.

This draft has now been updated with reliable and independent secondary sources (Forbes Korea, Chosun Biz, Yonhap, etc.) and all citations are properly formatted with tags using {{cite news}}. Primary sources have been removed.

Please kindly reconsider for review.

— User:방명호 방명호 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I usually do not review the same draft twice, however you can resubmit the draft and another reviewer will take a look at it when they get a chance. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Parasitic ant you nominated as a good article has passed File:Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Parasitic ant for comments about the article, and Talk:Parasitic ant/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GGOTCC -- GGOTCC (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Weigela florida has been deleted G6. Please proceed with draft acceptance. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sophisticatedevening. Thank you for your work on Pop festivals. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Good start}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|North8000}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)