This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

Ken Tony Peter,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Poppified ( talk) 02:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@ Poppified:, Same to you bro. May God bless you and have a best year ahead. Ken Tony ( talk) 09:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The names used in citation templates are for the author of the work being cited, not you. As an example, you added 3 citations to MS Dhoni and used 2 of the 3 names in your username. e.g. Spike 'em ( talk) 12:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Spike:, Noted. Will do as it in future. Thanks for the info.

Sorry for mucking about with your userpage, but there were some things that needed removing. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me an email. Primefac ( talk) 01:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Primefac:, Noted that. No worries. Thank you and all the best. Ken Tony ( talk) 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Iain Hume, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Robby.is.on ( talk) 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Robby.is.on:, Thank you for the message. I primarily use Indian English and I think that's what the reason for my mistake. I went on to edit the article to add certain citation, but when I noticed that word in red line, I changed them with a vision of improvising the page but not with an intention to vandalise them. Anyway, thanks for letting me know about my mistake out of your valuable time. Best wishes and all the best. Ken Tony ( talk) 13:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. It happens. I also had to learn this at some point in my time here. :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on ( talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Thanks for the reply. 😃 Ken Tony ( talk) 16:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing i edited was not for a new fact or anything like that, instead it was just mixing up the way a list went, the list order used to be ranking for scotland, ranking for uk, then population, ranking for europe, this is not how lists work, the population would have to be either at the end or beginning of the list as to not interrupt the ranks within these places, if i am wrong about how grammar works you can tell me and i will be fine with changing it back. Thank you for taking the time to read this Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoceany2 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Smoceany2:, Hello user. Please may I ask you one thing. About which list you're talking? I know you're talking about one of my changes from 'Pending changes' section, so please let me know the list name. Thank you Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony Peter: I was talking about Glasgow, Scotland, thank you for responding. :)

@ Smoceany2: Whatever changes you make in Wikipedia, adding citations are mandatory in every case. No matter whether you're editing an article or a list, you should show from where you got the information. There is no excuse for that. Also, don't forget to sign after your comments in any of the talk page. (signing can be done by adding four consecutive tildes after your comment) Thank you Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony Peter: What citations do I add for grammar changes? Thank you Smoceany2 ( talk) 17:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Smoceany2: You might have added any content along with the change in article grammar. I won't warn user without any reason. I don't remember the act of edit on the given article because I review many article every day. Thank you Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony Peter: I did not change anything in the article besides moving the population to the instead of randomly put in the middle, thank you for you time Smoceany2 ( talk) 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Smoceany2:Anyway, when I saw them, there was some changes, and even if you move something you should use your edit summary to clearly say what changes were made in article. Even if you moved a non-cited sentence or words or what ever it is, you and all of them are compelled to add the source because non-cited and possible vandal activities will come to pending changes list and someone will review it. I am a reviewer and there are many like me. So they will review it. If we don't find citations in the change, we won't approve it. It's not my fault or your fault. So, I believe you understood the situation clearly. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am working on editing the criticisms of capitalism section on the Capitalism page so that if goes inline with other economic pages. Since there is a page already dedicated to criticisms, that is where I am either moving criticisms or ensuring their arguments are there. I am making multiple edits with reasons so that each section may be reviewed. What are your thoughts on this project? I am newer to editing so any advice is appreciated in cleaning this article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TauGuys ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ TauGuys: Hai user. I am glad you're here to stay with a good intention. Wikipedia has certain guidelines which should be followed in every edit we make. I have nothing against your edits on the article of Capitalism. As I'm a pending changes reviewer, and should review edits made by different user in different articles, I'm compelled to have a clear look on them before proceeding to my next step. You were adding contents to the article but didn't provide citations to prove your addition. Also, there was a huge content being discluded in your edits. Citations are important in Wikipedia, which help people to navigate to the destination from where you got the information. Thank you for the reply, and you can further contact me if you have any more doubts regarding the guidelines and policies. Also don't forget to sign after adding a comment in any talk page (signing can be done by adding four consecutive tilde after your comment). Thank you and have a nice day. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have completed my suggested edits for review! TauGuys ( talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ TauGuys: You added citations to your changes? I can also see a mass removal in the page. It's in the list of pending changes again. Please add citations for inclusion, (if not added) and make sure you're not removing excess and important content from the article. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony Peter: The only citations and changs added are ones that were already within the page. Content removed from the article, along with associated citation, was moved to the criticisms of capitalism page. On COC page you will see where I added the information along with its original citations. TauGuys ( talk) 19:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ TauGuys: Gotcha. Happy editing. Be aware not to get a vandal presence from your part. You can message me any time if you have any query. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ User:Ken Tony Peter I will start using the talk section a bit more before making changes, that seems to help. TauGuys ( talk) 13:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ TauGuys: If you want to practice your edits, you can use your sandbox for them. Also, don't forget to sign after your comment. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This pending change should not have been accepted per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources. I've reverted it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Ohnoitsjamie: Dude, that user added her birth date, and when I surfed to check whether that's true or false, many sources showed the same date. That's why accepted the revision. Anyway, no problem your reversion. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhm sorry. Now only I found out that she had a history of lying her age. I just took a quick look for review and that's what cause the problem. Thanks for reverting. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's quite possible someone is lying about her age, but we need to err on the side of BLP, especially with primary sources that show home address details and other personal information. Yes, the information is out there, but we don't need to present it front and center. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Ohnoitsjamie: Yeah. Basically I'm not into what you call a 'music genre' or something. So I don't know much about these people. I'm more into articles related to football. I've been seeing this article in the pending changes list since the morning, I guess, so I just took a look onto it. That's what caused the action. Thanks for informing me. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ran a 411 blog that the paper ran for one year, which since he has run on his own. It was during the time the paper ran the blog, so it is fine to reflect as an rs, but it was a blog nevertheless. See here .. [1] -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7 ( talk) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@ 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7: There was no need for your change. He has both status. So, you should have added journalist and blogger. Revision before your action had no problem, and that's my reason of reversion. Thank you, and I recommend you to create an account to prevent showing your IP address to public. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Then what was the reason for your deleting the fact that he was a blogger, rather than just adding journalist? And I'm ok with you seeing my IP address. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7 ( talk) 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@ 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7: When you surf in any search engine for his name, it will first show his designation as journalist. I agree with the fact that your addition of 'blogger' by replacing 'journalist' is legit, but the early revision won't mislead anyone. That's why I reverted it. Thank you for the reply. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But can you make the addition? I seem to be unable to. Thanks. And the reason for the addition, btw, is that there is a marked difference between a run of the mill journalist, and a freelance gossip blogger whose blog is run by a newspaper. 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7 ( talk) 20:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@ 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7: Isn't that possible for you now to add the information? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried. Another editor wouldn't let it through. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 ( talk) 04:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7: That user might have protected the page. Okay bye. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So - as you agree w the addition - can you perhaps do the honors? 2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 ( talk) 07:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ 2603:7000:2143:8500:B497:77CC:E598:1AB7: Okay. I'll take a look. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C575:4149:C023:3136 ( talk) 08:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Best work! MeritedElm63160 ( talk) 22:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@ MeritedElm63160: Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kashmorwiki was:

This 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paulius Ragauskas and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paulius Ragauskas, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the citations from Heritage Times and added back Sport and Pasttime. I had added the details of his early days from Rahim's 1963 obituary in Sport and Pastime. The writer in Heritage times has clearly used the wikipedia data to add these details in his article . So makes no sense for us to cite his article as our reference. Tintin

@ Tintin1107: Okay. No issues. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

To the user Ken Tony Peter

I don't know if you're aware but the South Korean Film company CJ Entertainment company was originally involved with Iron Man 2008 and Iron Man 2 2010 and this was before the Disney Marvel merger.

I put CJ Entertainment originally in the category section of 2 of those film pages. I got this information from a Korean website source called Naver at this link and take a look at the Iron man Poster and you'll see the CJ Entertainment Logo ^[1] And also at the Iron Man 2 Poster and you'll also see the CJ Entertainment Logo ^[2] But CJ Entertainment is not involved with Iron Man 3

Also Ken Tony Peter I don't know if you're aware on IMDB page. But CJ Entertainment company name has been mislabeled in many of the Marvel Superhero films including Avengers: Endgame 2019, Thor: Ragnarok (2017), Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), Black Panther (2018), Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017), Doctor Strange (2016), Thor: The Dark World (2013), Iron Man 3 (2013) and the Shimajiro films. Please go to the IMDB link and look at CJ Entertainment and you'll see CJ Entertainment has been incorrectly mislabeled. ^[3] If you have an imdb account please talk to the IMDB staff and ask them to remove CJ Entertainment from those Marvel Films that Disney company distributed.

Can you please accept CJ Entertainment Category for Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2 because they were involved with 2 of those Paramount Marvel films before the Disney Marvel merger. CrosswalkX ( talk) 13:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@ CrosswalkX: I understood the situation. You said there is the logo of CJ Entertainment in the posters of both the films in that website called Naver right? I couldn't see those. I know about IMDb. But the thing is that there is no Iron Man (2008) linked with the reference of IMDb you pinned here. Okay, I can see Avengers: Endgame, Avengers: Age of Ultron etc. But you should know the fact that the article of both Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2 are those articles, which passed GA criteria, and has that status to this date. So while the passage of this criteria, every necessary informations must be included in the article, or else it will not pass the criteria. So, if the information about CJ Entertainment are not present in these articles mean that it's not necessary (most probably). There won't be any mistake. And it's already mentioned in the infobox that those two movies are distributed by Paramount Pictures. So considering all these things, I didn't pass your edit. Thank you for your question. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm sorry I forgot to add the Naver Korean film website link, next time, I'll be better with my source information. May I have permission to re add CJ Entertainment Category to Iron Man and Iron Man 2? I'll make sure to add the Naver Korean film link to those 2 Iron Man Film pages. Let me know, I always do my homework research before I ever contribute on Wikipedia. CrosswalkX ( talk) 14:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@ CrosswalkX: I recommend you to discuss about the topic in the article's talk page before proceeding your action. Always ready to help you. Thanks. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

To Ken Tony. I want to apology to the wikipedia staff.

Recently I got into trouble on wikipedia because I didn't know it was forbidden to upload copyright images like the Iron Man poster. I'm very sorry to the wikipedia staff, I won't upload anymore copyright images in talk pages again. I don't want to get blocked, I'm very scared, I'm autistic, I don't want to lose my contribution privilege. I'll try harder to be in good faith. Did the wikipedia staff accept my apology yet. Please let me know. I was only trying to show that CJ Entertainment was involve with Iron Man 1 and 2.

Please help me out by not being put at risk of getting blocked on wikipedia anymore. I'll try harder obey the rules from now on. And if you want, I'll stop contributing CJ Entertainment Category in the Dreamworks films since I don't think anyone on wikipedia understands at this time. CrosswalkX ( talk) 15:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ CrosswalkX: It's very important to read Wikipedia editing guidelines before starting up. You should read those policies before proceeding further actions. I told you to discuss in talk page regarding the issue. You're currently not blocked from editing. So do like what I said. Read the guidelines first. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent work on improving the article Rowllin Borges. I would love to see you improving more Indian football related pages. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Kashmorwiki: Thank you for the compliment buddy. Means a lot. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please keep a close eye on the article of Vilnius as user Oliszydlowski is performing mass removal of a quality content which is based on completely reliable sources. Some of his removals (e.g. the entire section of "Language") kind of reminds racism, anti-Lithuanian thoughts because it presents well the usage of a Lithuanian language in the city (it is still popular among the Polish nationalists to falsely treat Vilnius as a Polish city). For example, there is a section about language in Rome#Language, so his motivation that such a section is not relevant in an article about a city is a complete non-sense. I created most of the sections myself and based it mostly on a quality article of Paris (e.g. Paris#Fashion) and of other cities, so Oliszydlowski's vandalism and personal opinion cannot be tolerated. Please take anti-vandalism procedures and inform the administrators accordingly if he continues his vandalism in this article. Best regards, -- Pofka ( talk) 18:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Pofka: Will have an eye on the article, and'll take necessary actions when required. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 04:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no vandalism on the aforementioned page and Pofka should get familiar with what WP:VANDALISM is/is not since he clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Oliszydlowski left edit summaries after every edit and I looked through it and agree with him. Currently, the page reads like a magazine in some parapgraphs and there is a lot of unneeded content. In addition, I see a worrying pattern in Pofka's recent behavior – he labels other editors as racists (Pofka clearly confuses racism with xenophobia), nationalists or Lithuanian haters when someone has a different opinion than his. And it does not matter what kind of edit someone makes, but Pofka will instantly come and start calling others names and start conflicts. – Sabbatino ( talk) 07:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Sabbatino: I made a query on the accused user. It's all alright. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Pofka: @ Ken Tony: @ Sabbatino: - Personally, I believe that Pofka's accusations are disgusting, hinting xenophobia, and really not worthy of a Wikipedia user. In regards to the edits I will quote what I have recently written on my talk page - "Edits related to excessive information not linked to the city or its direct history. Countless examples of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and of low relevance per Wikipedia:Relevance which states that "Material that is irrelevant or out of scope to an article's topic can unnecessarily bloat an article, making it difficult for a reader to remain focused, and can also give the material undue weight". The article is much too long and uncomfortable to navigate. It should not be classified as a B-class page in the first place. The content was deleted per Irrelevant section of the Wikipedia:Content removal. Oliszydlowski ( talk) 08:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• @ Ken Tony: @ Sabbatino: @ Oliszydlowski: Go on and delete these sections as well then: Paris#Fashion, Paris#City government, Rome#Language, Rome#Catacombs (PAY ATTENTION: that these sections includes history of fashion/city government/language of the city). So why it is not allowed to include analogous sections to the article of Vilnius? Are you trying to prove that the article of Paris (classified as "good article") structure is not according to the rules of Wikipedia? Broad articles, such as countries and cities, often reach about 300 000 bytes size and it is allowed to have a bigger size if it is a broad topic (100 000 - 150 000 bytes size is unrealistic if we are speaking about an article with 200+ or 300+ references). Moreover, large part of the article of Vilnius size is coming from its excellent amount of references (totally, 442). Article of Paris has 348 references, so by adding another 80 references it would easily reach over 300 000 bytes size. However, having a well referenced article is one of the aims in Wikipedia ( Wikipedia:Citing sources). I will openly discuss removing/paraphrasing certain lines after reaching a Wikipedia:Consensus, but mass removal of sections which are based on high-quality articles of Wikipedia structures is nothing else than a vandalism for me as Oliszydlowski's removals largely were a destruction of an accepted structure of cities articles in Wikipedia. His reasoning for removing the section of "Crafts" was: "Completely pointless and an unencyclopedic section for a city article; some of the information belongs to the history section or GD of Lithuania article. Removal per Irrelevant under Wikipedia:Content removal", but this section is about Vilnius Mint, Vilnius Goldsmiths' Workshop, and other crafts that were essential components for Vilnius and largely contributed to its importance, development, so labelling it as "completely pointless" is an absurd and it fits much more to Vilnius (because they were based there) than to the article of Grand Duchy of Lithuania which describes things in a lot of cities (nationwide). If Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (most of the references are from it - vle.lt) is a magazine style for you, then I really don't know what is an encyclopedia for you in Lithuania. Wikipedia:Vandalism: "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose", so mass removal of content based on the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia and the widely accepted articles structures of Paris and Rome does qualify as a vandalism for me. I questioned line "Vilnius was Sigismund's favorite city, his investments made it one of the most beautiful cities in Eastern and Central Europe" myself as well before adding it, however it is based on the facts that: 1) he spent most of his time in Vilnius when he was with Barbara Radziwill; 2) he was a Gediminid; 3) his investments were massive, one of the finest examples is the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania reconstruction with his father; 4) Barbara Radziwill (Lithuanian) was his only true love and he was devastated after her death, so he did not preferred any other city (including Krakow) over Vilnius at the time, which might not sound very pleasant from a Polish perspective by having in mind that he is one of the main components of the Polish Golden Age, therefore I'm not surprised that it immediately caught the eye of Oliszydlowski, whose edits mostly focuses on Polish topics. -- Pofka ( talk) 17:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ken Tony. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Shabir, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 18:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@ FireflyBot: That draft can be deleted. It was mistakenly created by me. So there is no offence in deleting that draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 04:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've got some sources on the talk page, thanks for reminding me. I have been meaning to update the article for a while but haven't gotten around to it. jp× g 19:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@ JPxG: Okay. If you got sources, you may add it. You shouldn't have removed the template without adding further citations. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ken tony Erobb221 is tyler1s brother how else would i prove that!! ken!!!!!

KEN SEARCH UP WHO IS TYLER1'S BROTHER AND YOU WILL SEE THAT EROBB221 IS HIS BROTHER KEN!!

Information icon Hello, I'm Ken Tony. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Tyler1, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 17:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

THE MESSAGE ABOVE THAT I HAVE RECIVED HOW ELSE WOULD IS SITE THAT EROBB221 IS TYLER1S BROTHER KEN!!!!!!!!

@ 3ichel21: Whenever you start a new conversation, start them from a new section. Don't start from the previously archived discussion present in the talk page. I've added the simplified way to start a new conversation in my user page. So next time, check that out. Coming back to the topic. If you are adding any content to any article in the Wikipedia, you should always cite the sources. It is very necessary that it serves as a sign from where you got that given information. It will also help the readers to make further more references on the given sentence/paragraph. It is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Unreferenced sentences will be challenged and will be removed from the article. Also make sure that you sign after every comment you make on any user talk page (signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes). Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony,

You reversed one of my edits on the Montana State page and left behind: "Not so convinced with the citation." Do you mind elaborating on why that is? That info you removed pertains directly to the Fishing section it was in, and provides context as to Fishing's impact on the state's economy, as one of the four largest sources of spending in the state of Montana. I find it odd you would remove details related to fishing outfitters, when they make up such a substantial portion of the state's economy, yet has no reference anywhere else in the article. I would like to undo your removal of this section, as outfitters are a massive aspect of revenue generation in Montana, and should have a reference in the state's article.

Cpinto23 ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Cpinto23: I reverted the inclusion because when I accessed the source, the link contained the word 'blog' on it. Blogs aren't used as a source. Blogs aren't always reliable. I'm not against that citation, but for me, I needed another source at that time to approve your inclusion. When I reached the rock-bottom of the source you cited, I saw a reference section there. This made me more inclined with my opinion that this source is most probably a blog. Considering all these facts, I reverted your edit. Feel free to ask more questions. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony: Ah, interesting. So if an article takes other works, synthesizes the data from various facts and figures in those works, and then presents it anew while citing those original sources as the source for that synthesis, that doesn't qualify as a verifiable new source? What separates a blog from an article or publication? Seems like a semantics issue to me. So if that link had been from the same site, but without the word blog in it, that would qualify? Apologies, I'm just trying to understand for future edits. Cpinto23 ( talk) 18:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Cpinto23: There is huge difference between a blog and an article. A blog is written from a personal perspective by an author and will contain biased information. An article to an extend won't be having any biased information, and will have most of the information that is reliable. A blog can be created by anyone. There are strict regulations proposed by Wikipedia regarding the citing of sources. Only reliable sources will withstand here. Blogs are always ejected as a source. If you find any other source it would be helpful. Reliability is one of the important pillars of Wikipedia. Feel free to ask doubts. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony: Alright, understood. Thank you for taking the time to go through that with me. Cpinto23 ( talk) 19:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ken Tony. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Shabir".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Liz: Thank you for deleting it. I mistakenly created that draft. Thank you once again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken,

Hope you have a spectacular day! I think I did a Jeremy Lin edit several hours ago and I was wondering the "citation" thingy. I may be wrong since I forget at times, but I'm pretty sure I did not change/add any sources except for the position "Shooting Guard", but that's about it because I try to add Jeremy Lin's secondary position to the bio section on the right side of the screen. I did also add section titles but that's about it. I'm not sure what citations I used because I thought I did not use any harmful/outside-the-box sources since I did not change anything content-wise. Please respond!

Thank you

Sincerely, WAKANDAEDITNBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAKANDAEDITNBA ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@ WAKANDAEDITNBA: A citation is a source which you cite on a particular sentence/paragraph to identify from where you got that given information. It also helps the reader to get further information regarding that topic. I'm not that much into basketball as I'm into football. You added his position as "Shooting Guard", but you didn't provide a source to support the claim, or mentioned it (source) in the summary. A source helps us to understand from where you got that information. Citing of sources is one of the most important regulations of Wikipedia. So, after taking all these into account only I took down your edit. And more thing. Whenever you leave a message on a user talk page or an article talk page, don't forget to put your signature at the end of your typing. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Feel free to ask more questions. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ken Tony/Archive 2021. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph ( talk) 18:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Ahilya's show still airs on TV. Why did you undo the edit, it was completely wrong. https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/zee-hindustan/entertainment/ahilya-facing-problems-for-girls-education-punyashlok-ahilyabai-show-update/908158

@ 223.229.254.243: Hai. That time, when you included that sentence, you didn't provide any citation. Unreferenced sentences/paragraphs will be challenged. Now I can see you've mentioned a source here. Go on and add them to the article. So it might be approved by someone or myself. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page about me adding unsourced information, but I'm confused what you mean. All I changed was pipeline [[bulimia nervosa]] to [[bulimia]]. SpyGuy12345 ( talk) 14:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ SpyGuy12345: Hai. You added that she is a model, but didn't provide a source to support the claim. That's what all is about. Next time, when you add something, don't forget to cite a source. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony: I swear I didn't add the model part. SpyGuy12345 ( talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ SpyGuy12345: Ah, my mistake. Sorry for that. Also link the words properly. Always check the general typing style while linking. Feel free to ask more questions. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bill Maher shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa 🇨🇦 ( talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Diannaa: I was not involved in an intentional edit conflict. Infact, It was me, who finally approved his/her's edit. You could see that in the history. I was asking for another citation in the summary to prove that user's claim. Nothing more. I finally approved his edit. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the edit warring policy. Please be sure to make yourself familiar with the section Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 ( talk) 19:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Diannaa: Will do as it is in the future. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

source is right there https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/02/the-idlib-turkey-shoot-destruction-and.html

click on bold text to see visual confirmation

@ 85.103.50.211: Whenever you start a new conversation, start a new section. I've simplified the way to create a new talk section on the upper part of my talk page. Coming back to the topic. If you got sources, you can add it on the article. Unsourced additions will be challenged. Citing of sources are very important. You can cite that source all by yourself. Also, don't forget to sign at the end every paragraph you add on any user talk page or an article talk page. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Feel free to ask more questions. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

but I did add a source 85.103.50.211 ( talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

can you approve my edit

@ 85.103.50.211: I made a visit to that article, and it's visible that you haven't cited the source in the article to support your claim. I can see that you've mentioned the source in the summary. I asked you to cite the source in the article. Not to mention it in the summary. If you cite that source in the page, I'll approve your edit. If you have any doubts regarding citing sources, see WP:CS Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

like I said it is in the article and always was https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Operation_Spring_Shield&stable=0&redirect=no#cite_note-24

@ 85.103.50.211: Then use that citation and paste it near your inclusion. Reminding you once again about the signing of comments. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

it is right next to it 85.103.50.211 ( talk) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

it is right next to it 85.103.50.211 ( talk) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@ 85.103.50.211: Yeah. I could see that. But we should always sign after every comment we make on any talk page. See WP:SIG for more information. And one more thing. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. We should always use polite language to communicate to other users. What I'm trying is to make you understand the scenario. I think you understand what I'm mentioning. You can leave me a message whenever you need any help. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

im usually a very calm person but I spent more than an hour writing that list and Im not sure why you haven't bothered to approve it for over 5 hours and heres my sign whatever it has to do with the article 85.103.50.211 ( talk) 17:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@ 85.103.50.211: Buddy. The reason why I'm not approving your edit is that you haven't cited that source near your inclusion so far. Anyone with pending changes right can review your edit. I'm one of them. There are many like me. But it will be most likely reverted by them saying the same reason what I'm saying. The reason why I'm frequently telling you about signature is that, it is very important and necessary for every user to sign at the end of the message they post. It helps other users to identify who added that message by an instant. It'll be easier for users to navigate, who is included in a conversation. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

i dont understand, I placed it in the bottom where it says "destroyed or captured" where is it that you want it placed and can't you do it this time to show me? 85.103.50.211 ( talk) 17:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@ 85.103.50.211: No need of confusion. I saw that. Approving your edit. Good work. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

someone reverted again saying there is no ref can you approve please 85.103.50.211 ( talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 85.103.50.211: Sorry buddy. I can only review it when it comes to pending changes list. I told you before right it will be removed by someone saying there is insufficient citations. That's what happened. I approved your edit based on one source. So that's why that user reverted it I guess. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, that may have been me reverting the edit. I did so because the link appeared to be inviting the reader to engage in original research - to verify the data they present in the tables, we must assume that the video is genuine, and attempt to count the alledged materiel destroyed. There's also the question of the provenance of the information - I just wasn't comfortable that that it would survive a RS review, and so reverted it. Best, BrxBrx( talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 08:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@ BrxBrx: No problem my friend. I knew someone will revert it. Also reminding you to add talk page stalker tag in the beginning of the message, when you are entering a random two-person conversation. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Ashalatha (singer), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed ( verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity ( talk) 09:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@ GermanKity: For a clear understanding, that article was not written by me. It is a recreation of a page, first created by the blocked user Kashmorwiki. I asked permission of an admin to recreate all the good articles (not GA status) created by him, which was deleted under the G5 criterion. I had previously copied every source from most of the pages created by him and recreated them. You can see a list of recreations done by me on my user page. If I wrote that article, it wouldn't have been that small or stub or whatever you wanna mention it. Unfortunately, articles of that type are not under my scope. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken, @ GermanKity:, I did some clean up on this article. I think it's enough to survive in mainspace now, thoughts? I've focused on the English sources as I don't read Malayam. Star Mississippi 19:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Star Mississippi. I'll submit it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Goodlug ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sagami Rubber Industries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think I have followed the guidelines and removed all promotional messages but the article is still declined. Is it because of the tone or lack of range of independent, reliable, published sources? Could you be more specific? Thank you!

Goodlug ( talk) 10:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai Goodlug. The reason why I declined that draft was because it still had that promotional tone. That draft requires reliable and secondary sources. YouTube videos as sources must be removed. So in conclusion, the draft should be modified according Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, thank you for your kind reply. I have just revised the article again based on your suggestions. Is it possible that you can help take a look before I submit the article again? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodlug ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure Goodlug. You may submit it once more. I will review it and inform you my updated decision. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You have rejected my article about Michael Hall on the grounds that there are insufficient reliable sources. Since I quote references from major UK newspapers, published books and music journals I do not understand how these are 'unreliable;iab;e'. Can you explain please. Brenda P. Hall ( talk) 07:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Brenda P. Hall. The reason why I rejected your draft is because that draft has many sources that needs to be converted, as well as there is a YouTube video as a source. They're generally not reliable. If you sort all these things out, we can have a look on it once again. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. I am not sure what you mean by 'converted'. Can you explain please. Brenda P. Hall ( talk) 07:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Brenda P. Hall: Converting means converting bare links into Wikipedia form of citation. An example of a bare link:- ^[1]. An example of a converted link:- ^[2]. I hope you understood the difference. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I have converted the links according to the correct format. The one I am not clear about is the las reference as this is a website not a publication. I hope you will be able to review and accept the article. Thank you for your help. Brenda P. Hall ( talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No Brenda P. Hall. Two more sources are left to be converted. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok Ken. I think I have met all the criteria for references now. I do hope this page can be published now.

@ Brenda P. Hall: Let me have a look Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Brenda P. Hall. I'm convinced with the draft now. Reliability of sources, significant coverage etc etc are there to make that draft pass WP:GNG. But there is one more thing left to do. All citations must come after the symbols. If you sort that out, I'll move that draft to mainspace. Good work. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ken. Once again I am not sure what you mean by 'after the symbols'. But good to know that I am finally on track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda P. Hall ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Brenda P. Hall. By symbols, I meant punctuation marks. Citations should come after punctuation marks. If you sort that out, I'll accept the draft. Or should I do it? Anything as you wish. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ken. I have made the necessary changes and hope we can now proceed to publication. Thank you for your help. Brenda P. Hall ( talk) 22:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Brenda P. Hall: There was little more corrections required, which I did just now. You may re-submit that draft. I will review it. Good work. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ken, Much appreciated. Brenda P. Hall ( talk) 07:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Brenda P. Hall, you may submit the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. I have submitted the draft as you suggested. I just hope I won't have to wait another five months for publication! Brenda P. Hall ( talk) 13:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Brenda P. Hall: Ha. You won't be waiting for five months again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ken. So good to see the article published at long last. Many thanks for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda P. Hall ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No mention Brenda P. Hall. We're here to help. You can seek my assistance whenever you want. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Brenda P. Hall. I would recommend you to get your account autoconfirmed. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. I am not sure what that means. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia!

@ Brenda P. Hall: Getting autoconfirmed helps you to increases your user access level. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ken Tony. Same question as Brenda P. Hall. You have rejected my article about Charly 2000 on the grounds that there are insufficient reliable sources. Since I quote references from major german newspapers and online journals I do not understand how these are 'unreliable'. Further the translation was done by a professional native speaker. Can you explain please. -- W2357 ( talk) 07:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai W2357. The reason why I rejected your draft have many reasons. Firstly, it looks like a rough translation from a German Wikipedia article with the same name 'Charly 2000'. Secondly, YouTube video as a source is present. Third reason is that the articles requires secondary sources. After taking all these things into account, I rejected your draft. You can modify it according to Wikipedia standards and re-submit it once more. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ken,

I am confused with the message of: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

I added this:

References http://nhltradetracker.com/

Diamond, Dan, ed. (2003). Total NHL. Chicago: Triumph Books. pp. 447–926. ISBN 978-1-57243-604-6.

The second one is a book that was endorsed by the NHL in which all the trades listed in my draft are actually found in the book as well and cross-referenced with the website NHL tracker. If this book isn't one of the best reference to list, well Wikipedia should take all NHL references as there is no reliable source at all.

Hey Scuddy07. Whenever you finish typing a message, always sign at the end of the message. It would helpful in many ways. The reason why I declined your draft was because the draft lacked 'inline citations'. That draft still don't have any inline citations. If you don't know what an inline citation means, I would recommend you to read WP:IC. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again Ken Tony! If I understand correctly, since the information is in the Total NHL book, on each transactions or dates, I need to add the book as reference with the actual pages. If yes, it will take a while but it can be done. Scuddy07 ( talk) 01:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey buddy, don't forget to sign at the end of the message. It can be done by adding four consecutive tildes. You can take time and modify the draft. There is no issue in that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, your message is asking for me to add inline citations. My problem is that a lot of this is based on a whole assortment of original material spread across many hard copy files at the National Archives in Kew. I put a section in under "Research Resources" with links to the catalogue entries, but we are talking about raw materials, like entries in FORCE 136's war diary. For example, I have a photo of the 2 pages which make up the mission brief, which was in one of the Force 136 file. I also have a photo of the full set of orders for MASTIFF/ANIMAL, which runs to 3 pages, from the personnel file of the team leader, which runs to 3 pages, and includes the lovely idea that he should be able to account for the 10K Guilders he was given!

I started the page because I found a number of other pages were referring to RAPWI (which I added links from before the page was put in draft mode) and it seems that there is little information on this subject, despite the large number of lives these teams apparently saved. I am still trying to find the source particular bit of information as it is in a one of the "Lost Voices" type books, which means it probably came from the IWM. I currently can't find the book I think it is in :-(

So not sure how I can move forward with this. All the books I mention generally have barely a mention of RAPWI but there are 7 pages on Wikipedia all making mention of it, eg:

• Bulu prison massacre
• Force 136
• CIA activities in Indonesia
• Battle of Semarang
• Hotel des Indes (Batavia)
• Cikini Hospital
• USS Geneva (APA-86)

And, yes, I added the RAPWI entry for Force 136 a few years ago when I first started researching my Uncle, who was one of the RAPWI team leaders, trained by SOE as a Jedburgh, caught by the Gestapo 3 times, escaped twice, sentenced to death by the third time and liberated by US troops before the sentence was carried out. Oh, and he ran the company that created pay per view TV. So yes, I have a personal interest, but I created the page due to the lack of any proper documentation on the subject. Everybody makes such a deal about the Vulcan attacks on Port Stanley being such a long flight, but that was only 15 hours and they needed 11 Victors to support them. The RAF squadrons supporting Force 136 flew unsupported mission for up to 24 hours, flying by dead reckoning, not being able to use the stars to navigate until the were well on their way and having limited fuel to find their drop zone. In the case of my Uncle, it looks like the parachute drop he did into Padang might have only been the second he ever did, the first being in training.

Thanks Marc350 ( talk) 10:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Buddy Marc350, I won't clearly understand what you're saying above, because this type of topics are not under my scope. Okay, whatever the reason maybe, a draft/article needs inline citations. To know more about inline citations, see WP:IC. I'm not against your creation, and is impressed by the quality of the draft, but the draft should have a sufficient amount of inline citations to go the mainspace. Feel free to ask more questions. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken. I think I am struggling on what needs inline citation. The requirement in the link you sent me says I need to inline cite anything that is a quotation or likely to be challenged. So, for example, the bit about the Dutch military command wanting to get Force 136 to help re-impose colonial power is referred to in the Dutch commander's own Wiki page without an in-line citation. That page has a references section with a link to his autobiography. The rest is all taken from a series of messages going to and from Force 136 command, across a number of files at the National Archives, all of which are noted in the references section (although I called it further research)

I could, for example, link the section about the orders to the exact file I found it in, which is http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14477956 but there will be a copy in every single team leader's file, I expect. So I think there is a mismatch between the requirements of an inline citation, as defined in the link you included, and what you want from me, as I don't think anything I have written is quoting, paraphrasing, contentious or exceptional. I could better organise the sources and reference sections maybe?

Thanks Marc350 ( talk) 13:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Marc350: Did you read ref tags section? There you find a brief information about citing inline citations or footnotes. For a clear information about citing footnotes, you may see H:FOOT. From there, you can see how an inline citation looks like. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

For progressive movements in the 1970s the Source Catalogs (published by the original Source publishing collective in DC) were widely distributed across the United States. They also were collected by a number of libraries, especially on US college campuses. These printed bound booklets (8 1/2 by 11 in.) were called a "Whole Earth Catalog for activists." They predated the Internet evolution into the World Wide Web. Outside of library science publications and progressive publications, it is difficult to find any mention of them online today.

So this is a classic "Catch 22" situation. The catalogs were never aimed at the general public, so they seldom received mass media attention.

I am a published author and independent scholar, and can get an article about the Source Catalog Publishing Collective 1970s in a serious Journal, but then you probably would complain that I was cheating.

-)

I could probably find some favorable mentions in old published print library science journals?

-Chip Chip.berlet ( talk) 16:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai Chip.berlet. The simple reason why I rejected your draft submission was because it lacked inline citations. Moreover, the condition of the draft is very bad to go the the mainspace. If you modify the draft according to Wikipedia standards, and to an encyclopedic way, in addition with sufficient inline citations, we can discuss about the additional measures that is to be done. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Will try finding some citations. I will have to go to a university library. Anything that predates the World Wide Web is a nightmare.

-)

-Chip

Chip.berlet ( talk) 20:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Anything as you wish Chip.berlet. Anyway, inline citations should be there. That's what all matters now. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Good day,

Thank you for the review of List of Antstream Arcade games I complied a list of games offered by Antstream Arcade by pulling the games list directly from their application. I have not been able to find a verifiable source for all the games they offer other than the approximate total (1200) and a few short list from various site. I have cited the 2 websites that give the most information about the number and their more popular games.

Please let me know if there is a better method to verify the list of games other than pulling the list directly from their application.

Ant Shrew13 ( talk) 17:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ant Shrew13. Good that you've cited sources. I don't think this draft will pass WP:GNG because as far as I'm concerned, the given topic haven't received significant coverage. Moreover, there is no main article for the so called 'Antstream Arcade Games'. So, I think, the chances of the draft surviving in the mainspace is comparatively low. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The main page it pertains to is Antstream Arcade. Should I wait for the main page to be completed prior to looking at getting this approved or would it be more worthwhile merging the pages? Ant Shrew13 ( talk)

@ Ant Shrew13: I would recommend you to make the main draft approved into main article. If that draft gets approved, we can discuss whether to merge or to keep an independent article regarding the list of games whatsoever. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you Ant Shrew13 ( talk)

@ Ant Shrew13: You're welcome. If possible, try to inform me if someone had done finishing the review on the main draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping for some assistance with this draft. The team was declined due to not being in a fully professional league but I feel like due to players on the roster and the statement in the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues" of "Players who have not played in a fully professional league listed below may meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline the team should be reconsidered. We have 3 players who played full professional soccer in the US that have their own page. Also, dozens of the teams in our league have pages. Please let me know any changes that can be made. kevinw33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinw33 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC) kevinw33

Hey Kevinw33, whenever you add a message in any of the talk page, don't forget to sign at the end. It would be helpful for us in many ways. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Coming back to the topic. The draft was rejected for many reason. First of all, the football club is not competing in a fully professional league as listed in WP:FPL. Second, the article don't have sufficient secondary and reliable sources. Final reason is that, the club hasn't received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Considering all these into account, I rejected your draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. From what I can gather, a qualification for team notability is the ability to qualify for a national cup /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability

NPSL teams qualify for the U.S. Open Cup which would be their check mark for notability. Being fully professional is not a necessary qualification. There are hundreds of teams in the US and thousands in Europe that are not full professional that have pages. I am working on sources but bear with me... this is my first page I've created. Kevinw33 ( talk) 17:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No Kevinw33, it's not given a team's ability to qualify for the cup will help meet it with GNG. It's given that the teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. The team hasn't played in national cup so far. So, it won't qualify GNG. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. So either the team needs to pick up their play or I'm back to the drawing board. Too bad Covid put a stop to qualifying for US Open Cup this year.

@ Kevinw33: Ha. Current time buddy. Anyway the draft will be there an extended period. You can modify it according the standards when the draft meets the minimum criteria to move to the mainspace. Happy to assist you. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi can you come over and help out with Draft:List of television franchises by episode count I really need help With this article to get it upto Wikipedia standards P+T. Fan Of Lion King 🦁 ( talk) 22:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fan Of Lion King. The draft lacks citations. If you get that, we can consider the next step. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ken Tony,

From reading a bit more about the requirements, it seems many of my citations were not converted; would you say that's the main problem I am facing here? Or is there something more that's amiss? Because 90% of my sources are national or regional newspapers and official websites. Do let me know if there is something else I have not considered! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shingimavima ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Shingimavima, I would recommend you to get more citations, and submit it again. The quality of the draft is good. Well done for that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

hai ken. Godson Jr 11110 ( talk) 06:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai Godson Jr 11110. You liking here? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello c, I recently saw Gulzaar Chhaniwala (singer) which you have declined. I've changed the sources a lot now. If you still find shortcomings in it, then I request you to rectify it. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 02:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello VRJ Bandhu. Sad to say, I'll decline the draft once again because, other than merging some cells, you haven't made any serious changes, and citations that you cited are YouTube videos. Already the draft was full of The Times of India sources that had YouTube videos linked to it. YouTube videos are not reliable. The draft's whole sources must be replaced with secondary and reliable sources. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Rita and jessica’s colours are same Superman011 ( talk) 17:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello my friend. You didn't provide a source for that. That's why I reverted it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the point

@ Superman011: It is serves as the evidence from where you got the given information. Wikipedia has strict guidelines regarding citing sources. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please do the source please Superman 011 18:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Uhm Superman011, from where you got that given information.? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add an additional citation because it was already provided in the infobox with her current subscriber number which is below 4 million Hannahxo ( talk) 17:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Hannahxo. If the mentioned citation was present in the infobox, you could have just reused that citation. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. I understand. Hannahxo ( talk) 02:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, user:bonadea deleted the page. See this, [2]. Kichuz996 ( talk) 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

He moved the article into Draft:Prasanth Nair (IAS). Now I moved back to Draft:Prasanth Nair. There are so much sources about him on Google. It passes both WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, right? Let me submit it again? Kichuz996 ( talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of significant coverage found on Google about Prasanth Nair, 'Collector bro' Prasanth moved out of Kannanthanam's office (OnManorama, 2018), Serving the people makes Prashanth Nair a local hero (Times Kuwait, 2018), 'Collector bro' Prashant Nair hospitalised, diagnosed with sudden hearing loss (NewsMinute, 2018), Superman 'collector bro' of Indian state Kerala (Gulf News, 2016), Kerala govt in a spot as fight between Kozhikode collector, Congress MP escalates (FirstPost, 2016). These sources focus on Nair and include in-depth coverage. Nair appears to be a 'major local political figure who has received significant press coverage,' e.g. Kozhikode IAS officer does it again: Now offers biriyani to clean water body (Indian Express, 2016, "An IAS officer in Kerala, who has often been in the news for his ingenious campaigns to improve public amenities and increase youth engagement, is back with a new formula."), Kozhikode collector promises to give people biryani if they help clean a city pond (Scroll.in, 2016 "IAS officer Prashanth Nair, who was behind the initiative, is known for his out-of-the-box campaigns to improve the state of his constituency."), Kozhikode’s ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair appointed private secretary to Tourism Minister KJ Alphons (Scroll.in, 2017, "Nair earned public acclaim when he started several initiatives in Kozhikode during his term as the collector, The Indian Express reported. He earned the moniker of “Collector Bro”, and even ran his own Facebook page, which has nearly 2.5 lakh likes."), How an IAS officer in Kerala used Facebook to help flood victims (The Print, 2018, "First, as the district collector of Kozhikode, IAS officer Prasanth Nair won the hearts of his home state, earning the moniker ‘Collector Bro’ for his citizen-friendly and participative approach in governance. Now, a few years later, at a time when Kerala is battling the worst natural calamity it has faced in living memory, Nair has inspired a volunteers’ movement to help the hundreds of thousands in need."), ‘Collector Bro’ Prasanth Nair Is Taking His Debut Film to Cannes (The Quint, 2018, "Considered as one of the most social media savvy IAS officers, Nair commands a large social media following on his official Facebook page due to his work in Kozhikode, as well."), Prasanth Nair's Masterstroke That Arrested Hunger In A Wayanad Tea Estate (Outlook India, 2020). Kichuz996 ( talk) 01:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai Kichuz996. I'm not sure whether this message will reach you or not because you're currently blocked. See, I'm also from Kerala, and I'm very familiar with the things happening in Kerala. Prasanth Nair aka Collector bro has got significant coverage and you've cited plenty of reliable sources. I didn't knew the creator was a sock. Even if I accept the draft and move it to the mainspace again, it'll surely be deleted under G5 criterion. So there should be no hope for you that the draft will survive in the mainspace. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI - Draft:Prasanth Nair now has information in Comments that it has a history of being created and deleted, and is currently nominated for Speedy deletion, so may disappear soon. You would not have been expected to know all this when you reviewed and approved the draft, because no history was connected to the draft. David notMD ( talk) 08:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah David notMD, I didn't knew about it's history. The draft had every quality to pass WP:GNG. That's the only thing that prompted me to do so. Thanks for reaching out here my friend. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

On May 25th Nat declined to accept the article on grounds that the submission was not supported by reliable sources, and now you are echoing same objection on June 11th. To meet that deficiency I cited four academicians who attest to Mahal’s work as writer and public volunteer. One of Wikipedia notability requirement is that “This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews”. Reviews of Mahal’s published works are provided: two for each of the two books. These are people independent of the subject itself and /or of its author, publisher or agent. I will be grateful if you can specify/exemplify the exact nature of deficiency. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 15:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello S Tallim. The draft lacks sufficient secondary and reliable sources. Also the person hasn't got significant coverage to satisfy GNG. These are my reasons for rejecting your draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find mention in secondary source. He is mentioned in an article titled "Trauma and memory witjin the Sikh diaspora" by N G Barrier ( https://doi.org/10.1080/17448720600779836) under note 14. He is also named in Sikh Diaspora by R. S. Chilana ( https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=42&q=bhupinder+singh+mahal&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5). He fulfills Wikipedia's notability defined as "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Mahal is recipient of prestigious Queen Elizbeth Diamond Jubilee award. He also received Council award by the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. Do above meet the reliable source criteria? S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 18:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: Still the draft has a lot of primary sources. It requires additional secondary and tertiary sources. Also can you show me the sources saying that the given person has won all theses awards as you mentioned? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Photographic evidence of presentation of medals is with Permissions-Wikipedia Commons who will publish it once the article is approved. I can provide you with these photos if you wish. S Tallim[[User:S Tallim|S Tallim] ( talk) 16:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: Uhm, so there is no written evidence on the awards? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey S Tallim Did you take that picture from Google? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The photo was taken by Mrs. Mahal. Here is written evidence. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 12:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim:If these images are from taken from Google without providing the credits, your Wikimedia Commons account will be warned. I want to see written evidence in internet as a form of feature. These images are not sources. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The presentation and documentation are not on the internet nor they need to be. I have filed a request for arbitration. {{subst:arbcom notice|CASENAME}}. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: Okay. You can act as necessary when the response on it has reach to you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I was informed that arbitration is not the route at this moment. Instead I should seek dispute resolution. But, lo and behold, I was able to find internet mention. Here’s the link -

https://www.gg.ca/en/honours/recipients filter_name=mahal&city_custom=dundas&f%5B0%5D=honour_type_id%3A%22125%22&f%5B1%5D=province%3A%22462%22&f%5B2%5D=field_of_contribution%3A%220%22 What next? S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

When you click on the link you will have to make your selections, as follows: In windows on left provide your query: Under HONOUR select Queen Elizbeth ll Golden Jubilee Medal. Under FIELD select [-] Other (69). Under PROVINCE select [-] Ontario (36). That will bring you to the page mentioning Bhupinder Singh Mahal. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: Saw that. Saw his name. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that you have the requisite evidence. What next? S Tallim 70.51.134.58 ( talk) 19:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of presentation of award by College of Physiotherapists is with Permissions-Wikipedia Commons. FYI. S Tallim 70.51.134.58 ( talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: You were not logged in. Your IP account is what I can see here. Share with me the link of Wikimedia Commons free image that you just said. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Permissions from Mrs. Mahal and Registrar of College of Physiotherapists were provided to Wikipedia Commons on April 19. Hereunder their e-mail response to me dated April 19 - Ticket #2021040510008374 - Dear S Tallim, When article it's approved, we can proceed. Please let us know then. Sincerely, Valeria Domínguez. Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 16:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey mate. Images, if you got permission, its okay. But what about the chunk of primary sources in the draft? You still haven't added secondary sources to constitute with primary sources. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I did provide four secondary sources, namely: https://www.sikhchic.com/1984/punjab_a_cataclysmic_showdown_aftermath_and_challenges, Norman G Barrier, Professor emeritus Asia and Sikh Studies, University of Missouri - http://sikhinstitute.org/july_2009/10-reviewvirk1.html, Dr. Hardev Singh, Visiting Professor SGGS World University, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India - http://giss.org/jsps_vol_23.html, Dr. Shinder Thandi (at page 201), Lecturer in Global Studies, UC Santa Barbara - https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Race-Bhupinder-Singh-Mahal/dp/8121512913, Editorial review by Dr. Visho L. Sharma Professor emeritus Social Sciences at University of Western Michigan. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your guidance and your patience. I am new at this kind of project. I will be grateful for all the help I get. I am 88 and frail of health. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 22:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: I'm little concerned over the Amazon's citation (regarding reliability). Did you add these into the draft? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Amazon is reliable. No doubt in that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I did add the Amazon reference. It is in section "Academics" 5th para, reference #18. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: Yeah I saw that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. What next? S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 22:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr. S Tallim. I made a visit to all the citations in draft. I found out that out of all 33 citations, only 15 sources mention about him. Rest of the sources doesn't have any connection with the draft. And out of this 15 selected sources, 7 sources are primary sources, and rest of the sources are perfect. WP:GNG clearly says that an article/draft requires more secondary and reliable sources that has no original research on it to establish notability of the topic. This person may meet notabilility criteria, but the draft currently needs to fulfill all of the GNG. You may also read WP:PSTS. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have revamped the citations and removed those that have no "connection with the draft". I have added another citation from Google Scholar. I have also provided proof of award of Queen Elizbeth Golden Jubilee medal. Here's the link indicating significance and importance of the medal: https://archive.gg.ca/honours/medals/hon04-qegj_e.asp. I have inserted it in the draft. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 14:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: Award section is written like an advertisement and the citation in the personal life section doesn't even mention about the things said in that section in the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I could delete the section on personal life. In the award section I can mention the award and then provide the criteria for awarding of the award by the respective organization. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 19:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: You can do anything. But everything should be done by respecting the guidelines provided by Wikipedia. That's what all it matters. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about your statement that “Award section is written like an advertisement”. A presentation of an award is always preceded by a citation that describes accomplishment for which the recipient is receiving the award and stating why the nominee was considered for this award. This is done even at the awarding of the Nobel prize or Presidential Medal of Honor or Padma Bhushan. On the Indian site it states “Citation for the Padma Awards should bring out the scale and the extent of the work that an individual has done”. Please clarify. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 14:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: It is written like an advertisement. There is no need of saying why the award is given to a personality. The whole section looks like promoting the person. Everything should be written from a neutral point of view. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I have re-written section on Awards from a NPOV, stating facts and not opinions. I have deleted section on personal life. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 16:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: I'll make a visit sooner. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Found and added citation of Mahal by Dr. Pashaura Singh in his book “Life and Work of Guru Arjan: History, Memory, and Biography in the Sikh Tradition”. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 16:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: There are still many errors in the draft. And why linking external links to the content? That's inappropriate. I want to ask you one thing. Do you have any close connection to the subject? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I was a founding member of a Sikh discussion group on Yahoo-Groups, now shut down. I was approached by Mahal in 2012 to help publish his book - about a Sikh emperor - as it could then be disseminated widely among the 1200 Sikh members of the group. No fees were asked nor paid. My son and I helped Mahal on the publication on Kindle Direct Publishing. I do not have friendly relationship with him. As our members bought his book and wrote favorably about it, and as I came across his recently published book "Origin of Jat Race", I was impressed with his works and decided to explore his life and activities. As I delved into his life I got persuaded to write his bio. To write the bio I contacted Mahal. I will delete the external links. Please tell me nature of errors in the draft. I am indebted to you for your indirect help in improving the draft. S Tallim S Tallim ( talk) 17:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@ S Tallim: Okay, so you have an interest in the topic. If my observation is correct, in one of the sources, I saw a review uploaded by you in one of his books or journal or whatever it is. I also read the rest of the parts and found out that in some parts, it is not written from a neutral point of view, as it sounds like your own personal opinion. You may also see WP:PSCOI. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ken Can you please specify why you declined the submission??? The article have cites specifically explaining about Dr. Vidhya, Have you been gone through all the references i gave on that draft, it have around 14 references and all are clearly focused on Dr. Vidhya.

Just check these references [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Please do go through all the references correctly and explain me which things are lacking in these articles. Thanks.

Ajna Hamza ( talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Ajna

Hai Ajna Hamza I didn't reject the draft citing the reason that it lacks sources. In fact I rejected it under the reason that the person hasn't got sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Two of the sources that you mentioned here are most likely not reliable. One looks like a blog, and the other is a photo. I can't read Tamil. There is a sourcing in Tamil, but I'm okay with that. Also when you just search with the name of the person in any of the search engine, there is no feature mentioning about her at first place. At first instance, it only shows her profiles in various websites. Previous reviewers also rejected the draft saying that it fails WP:GNG. So after taking all these into account, I rejected the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your taking the time to review the draft. I have some questions on how I can cite some references which I believe is the main problem with this draft. How can you cite art catalogs cause, unlike books that have an ISBN, these do not. Also, how would you cite old newspaper articles which don't exist on the internet but there is physical proof of it? Perhaps there is a tool online where you can reliably upload for wikipedia to use? And finally do let me know what else I can do to work towards getting the draft published! Cheers.

OneEyedWolf ( talk) 21:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai OneEyedWolf I rejected the draft under the ground that the person is not notable, i.e. the person fails WP:GNG. The sources that you've cited are also not fully reliable. I don't know how we add physical proofs as source in Wikipedia that doesn't exist in the internet. I would recommend you to ask about this in the Teahouse. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I see you already deleted our conversation but I'll reply still. :-) Thanks for the explanation. A reference from primary source, i.e. an announcement from the player's club, is better than no reference at all. You can in fact cite tweets as well: see Template:Cite tweet. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 13:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Robby.is.on. I wanted it to provide more reliability. That's why I hesitated to add the club source. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing, Robby.is.on ( talk) 19:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

When you decline someone's AFC submission, please make sure that you leave the "sorry" message on the talk page of the person whose draft it was, rather than the person who showed them how to fix the errors in their use of {{submit}}.

Also, never tell someone that the topic of their draft isn't notable. Tell them that they haven't shown notability. DS ( talk) 14:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes DS. I just got the reviewership on 30th last month. It's by beginning in the AfC. This would be so helpful. Thank you for that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, I just writing in regards to my submission for the Steve Ravic article. There is a copyright violation but I'm not sure what exactly is in violation, if there is, it's been a while since I wrote this one up. Could you please assist in pointing out the offending material, then I will attempt to rectify this. Metaldarren MetalDarren ( talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello MetalDarren. Whenever you leave a message on any of the talk page, don't forget to sign the end of it. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. It would be helpful for us in many ways. Coming back to the topic. Buddy this is not your fault. A website named Everybody Wiki has copied your draft and added it to their mainspace. So when I searched with the name of the person, that site popped up and the writings about the person were the exact same as what you wrote. ( Here is the site) That's what prompted me to do so. This is not your fault. I would now recommend you to change the style and usage of some words to avoid copyright conflict between your draft and that site's content. If you felt down by rejection, I'm very sorry for that. Thank you for reaching out to me. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm supposed to reply to this another way, I'm still fairly new so not sure how I do a follow up to a response, also sorry for the signing issue as well.

As for the case of EverybodyWiki, it seems they've completely copied my article here. In fact at the bottom of the page underneath the references section it states, I quote:

"This article "Steve Ravic" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Steve Ravic. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one."

In fact if you check the edit history link, it's literally the same edits I've made to the article prior that can be seen on Wikipedia. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Edithistory:Steve_Ravic

I want to make it clear I'm not having a go at you, it could be how the rules are, but is it really fair for me to have to change the draft I've written out myself and had submitted for review a third time on 19 April 2021, then have it sniped by potentially a bot or some person to put on a completely different wiki that looks to act like some sort of back up with its last edit being made at, I quote "This page was last edited on 28 May 2021, at 16:19" , whilst this one was being reviewed.

I'm not too sure what EverybodyWiki is but it may just be a a site that copies over drafts that are unpublished from Wikipedia, as searching for say, Tom Cruise doesn't bring up a copy of a Tom Cruise article for example.

Lastly looking on their frontpage they have a bot that seems to be cleaning up duplicates the site has with Wikipedia https://en.everybodywiki.com/Everybodywiki_bios_and_free_wiki_for_everybody

Again, just thinking that if the article was going to be published on Wikipedia (not saying it should, that's ultimately up to you guys), it may be that the duplicate gets deleted off of EverybodyWiki.

At least, I would put that forward to the mods here for discussion as it can be quite the punch to the gut to start creating articles then to have this happen, but even more so to have this happen and then have Wikipedia the one to fold in the situation when it's clear that they're (EverybodyWiki) the ones in violation of any copyright in the worst case, and in the best case just a site that seems to be acting as a repository of drafts and rejected articles from Wikipedia.

If you could reconsider the case if this is the only reason this would be holding up the publication of the article it would be much appreciated.

Also thanks for the responses, I know this is an odd case but there's a first time for everything MetalDarren ( talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ MetalDarren: You can continue the conversation in this section itself. There is no problem in that. I also saw that they've created the article after giving credits to you and your draft. You may do one thing. As I said before, change the structure/usage of words to make it different from the revision that is present in that site. That would be helpful and then re-submit it again. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony: Ok I will do so next when I can. However there's the worry they may just copy the changes over whilst this new iteration of the article is being reviewed. As an alternative, if I could contact someone from the site there and have them pull the article, would that be fine?" MetalDarren ( talk) 13:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You can do it whenever you want. Also if you have any means of contacting with personalities on that site, you may do anything as you wish. There will be full support from me. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• DaffodilOcean ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Paula Bontempi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I fully recognize that I am new to Wikipedia, however, I think Bontempi should be considered under the guidelines for academics. She is an oceanographer, and has been named a Fellow of The Oceanography Society. This is described and documented on the page I wrote. When I read the guidelines for Notability (academics), this falls under criteria #3 : "...or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor". Being named a fellow at The Oceanography Society is a selective honor, to quote their website ("... recognize TOS members who have made outstanding and sustained contributions to the field of oceanography through scientific excellence, extraordinary service and leadership, and/or strategic development of the field.") ^[1] My understanding was that academics are only required to meet one of the 8 possible criteria. Have I mis-understood the criteria here?-- DaffodilOcean ( talk) 20:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello DaffodilOcean. I think you've misunderstood my rejection reason. The given person hasn't got significant coverage. Read WP:GNG once again. You can find about it more in there. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello - Let me see if I can put this in the right terms. I don't think WP:GNG is the guideline to use in evaluating Bontempi's page. I think it should be WP:PROF. On WP:PROF the guidelines for academics do not include the requirement for significant coverage (as described in WP:GNG).

Mate, don't forget to sign at the end. Yes, WP:NPROF does mentions about coverage as a part of reaching notability criteria. Are you sure that you've read WP:NACADEMIC properly? It mentions about 'impact' inside and outside the topic. Also keep in mind that every draft or an article requires significant coverage to go to the mainspace. WP:NPROF is an extended branch of WP:N, where in its main page, it cites about WP:GNG and the requirements which I've said you that the draft lacks comes under GNG. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ack, sorry about not signing that message. I have read WP:NACADEMIC and it states "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." (I added the emphasis about independent). It then goes on to say that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions..." and Bontempi meets criteria #3. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey DaffodilOcean, I would like to know what makes the person pass the criteria no. 3. Will you tell me with a source to prove that? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Criteria #3 is "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Bontempi was named a Fellow of The Oceanography Society in 2019. On her page, I provided two citations for that honor: ^{[1] [2]}. According to the guidelines at WP:PROF, "publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source" so the citation I included from the The Oceanography Society website should suffice, though I added the Eureka Alert as well since it includes additional information about Bontempi. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay DaffodilOcean. I'm convinced with your proof. The draft can be transferred to the mainspace. But before re-submitting the draft, there are many things that is to be done. Will you perform according to my instructions? Or should I do it myself? Anything as you wish. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. I would feel better if you moved it because I have never moved something out of AfC. Thanks for your consideration of this article. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ DaffodilOcean: Yes mate. The only thing that's left in the draft is to do some modifications. It's not compulsory to do it, but I want every draft to be in a good condition whenever they go the mainspace. I'm more inclined to this because I myself is on a mission of improving a certain genre of articles. So, are you ready for that? Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am ready. Go for it. Thanks again. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ DaffodilOcean: Perfect. First, remove all the links to non-existing articles, and then add a short description tag, dmy date tag and and English usage tag for the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what this means: 'dmy date tag', nor do I know what 'English usage tag' means. I added a short description and removed the two non-existent links. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries @ DaffodilOcean:. I'll do it. For that I wanna know one thing. Which variety of English was used by you to write the draft? Is it British or American? If I could know that, it would be really helpful. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

American English DaffodilOcean ( talk) 19:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you DaffodilOcean. Rest I'll do. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

DaffodilOcean, I added those tags. Now there is only one thing left to be done. There is a need of info box in the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added the infobox scientist with the information that I can find. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@ DaffodilOcean: Great. Then you may resubmit the draft. I'll approve it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for your help. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 13:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes DaffodilOcean. Good work. Keep it up. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ken, After you rejected my first submission on the grounds of "Only one or two citation mentions about his name. Easily fails WP:GNG", I re-edited all references to make sure they come from reliable sources and clearly mention the author. Could you please review again to ensure that the revised version meets the requirements of being posted? Best wishes. Future of AI ( talk) 10:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello mate. I would definitely make a visit. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken, thank you for reviewing this article. My view is that there are sufficient references demonstrating significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These sources include government press releases, ^{[1] [2]} publications by reputable organizations independent of the subject (including the World Health Organization and Public Health Agency of Canada), ^{[3] [4] [5]} and media, ^{[6] [7] [8]} all of which are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Several of the media articles referenced provide significant, rather than passing, coverage of the subject (e.g., ^{[9] [10] [11]}). Is it a matter of simply including more of these? I felt that this would simply be over-referencing - the references included are clearly significant coverage and meet all of the other criteria, and so it is not clear how this fails to "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Hello Asphodel76. Whenever you add a message on any of the talk page, don't forget to sign at the end of the it. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Signing is very important as it is helpful for us in many ways. Coming back to the topic. For your concern, one citation you gave in above is not accessible for me as I'm not a subscriber. The problems which I found in some, if not all of the sources you cited above are as follows:-

• Firstly, as I said before, I cannot access one sources due to not buying their subscription.
• Secondly, one or two sources you cited above doesn't even mention his name.
• Thirdly, only two or barely three sources have given a lengthy feature about him.
• Fourthly, there is a French source among the group, which I cannot read. I know it is possible to translate the page and read them, but that translating would be rough, and it won't be conveying everything that is present in the original revision. (NOTE:- There is no problem in citing another language citation in English Wikipedia.)
• Finally, a weak and unpopular reason. When you search with the name of the person in any search engine, there would be nothing, other than some profiles in various websites.

By taking all these into account, I rejected your draft. I know this can be a bit absurd point of view, but you can defend your draft against my reasonings by speaking your part. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken - really appreciate the response. Thank you. And I apologize for not signing off - will ensure to do so from now on. I will address each of the concerns you've raised in turn:

• Firstly, as I said before, I cannot access one sources due to not buying their subscription. - I have now swapped this reference (#20) out for another suitable reference that should be accessible.
• Secondly, one or two sources you cited above doesn't even mention his name. - I've just checked, and every reference mentions the subject's name, although two of them did indeed require a further click - apologies for that. I've modified references 9 and 12 so that it is more apparent and directly links to the page with the subject's name.
• Thirdly, only two or barely three sources have given a lengthy feature about him. - Most references in the article are provided to confirm details (e.g., education, current position, etc.), and so would not need full coverage on the subject. However, the parts of the article that are substantive, e.g., that discuss the subject's research focus, have multiple references devoted entirely to the subject. It seems that the number of references I've provided is the norm and stops short of over-referencing. With that being said, I've added an additional three references that provide significant coverage of the subject, which now hopefully meets this criterion.
• Fourthly, there is a French source among the group, which I cannot read. I know it is possible to translate the page and read them, but that translating would be rough, and it won't be conveying everything that is present in the original revision. (NOTE:- There is no problem in citing another language citation in English Wikipedia.) - I appreciate that you cannot read this. But, the subject is a Canadian bioethicist, and consequently, there will be media on the subject in both of the country's official languages: English and French. The French article is another example of significant coverage of the subject. Hopefully the addition of the three new references will offset the fact that this reference with significant coverage of the subject is in French.
• Finally, a weak and unpopular reason. When you search with the name of the person in any search engine, there would be nothing, other than some profiles in various websites. - Hopefully this can be overlooked given all of the other ways I've addressed your concerns above, for at least the reason that search engine searches are tailored for the searcher's specific geo-location. At any rate, the name of the subject is not uncommon, and so you might try "Maxwell J Smith" to retrieve more results for the subject.

Thanks for allowing me to defend my draft against your reasonings. Happy to revise further.

Asphodel76 ( talk) 17:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Asphodel76 ( talk) 19:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see that you've cited more sources to the draft. I'm impressed with your claims. Yeah, it maybe true that our difference in the geographical locations might've influenced the way our search engine works. Anyway there are many things that is to be done in draft. I'll tell you everything gradually. Happy to assist you. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Tony, Thank you for your comments on the draft article on "Henk Jan de Jonge," Professor em. of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at Leiden University, the Netherlands. In your review you mentioned the following about the references in the draft: "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." I have been looking at the references once again, and they seem to me to give exactly the coverage you ask for, some of them coming from independent sources, such as official, biographical registers of Leiden professors, others from leading, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals and other publications. All these references are verifiable. Could you please tell me what kind of changes you are thinking of in order for me to make the draft acceptable? I would be very grateful to you for your help. Thank you in anticipation. Hjdejonge ( talk) 10:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey mate. I'm the second reviewer of the draft. Before me, some other reviewer reviewed and declined your draft citing the same reason. For your attention, unlike the previous reviewer, I didn't mentioned that the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. In fact this time, I rejected it with reason that the person hasn't got significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The citations maybe reliable but we should check whether the draft constitutes with the guidelines implemented by Wikipedia. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm concerned about some of your recent AFC declines. See Draft:Dragutin Prica, Fryderyk Buchholtz, Draft:Lucio Luiz, Draft:Jahantighi, Draft:Miroslav Milisavljević (last one had multiple reasons but one of them was translation related). Translations of other Wikipedia articles are perfectly acceptable, and that is not a reason to decline them at AFC. Unedited machine translations are not acceptable, but you seem to be declining all translations, even if performed by a seemingly competent human. Unless the translation is obviously faulty or is a copy of a Google Translate translation, there is no need to decline it on this basis. Also, to the extent a translation lacks attribution, you can simply add this attribution via a null edit and adding the template {{ Translated}} to the talk page. This is better than simply declining the article (on one, you called it a copyvio and advised the author to rewrite it -- which is completely unnecessarily in light of the option to simply attribute the work to the other wiki). Do you understand these issues, and can you correct these errors? Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello buddy. Thank you for giving this piece of information. Will do as it in the future. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 03:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, great, thanks! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 07:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome mate. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blastitbiggswhereareyou ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:X (2020 film) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - I'm confused, I was told on Dec 01 when the submission was first declined that I needed to show proof that the film was reviewed beyond passing mention and via secondary sources - which the Ain't It Cool News, Total Film, and San Francisco Bay Times reviews provide. The rest of the material is from online Press Releases I found on media new sites. If I were to source the film on streaming platforms, i.e. iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc. would that count as a reliable source being under the Vendor and e-commerce sources?

I know for a fact this film exists (having seen it myself), was distributed by a major distributor (Cinedigm) and it was reviewed in at least 3 notable sources (including SF Bay Times, a print paper); if there is a real way I can edit this page that I am doing incorrectly my apologies, please let me know how to edit it correctly.

Thank you for your help.

Blastitbiggswhereareyou ( talk) 07:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Blastitbiggswhereareyou. The reason why I rejected your draft this time was because it had a YouTube video as a source in it. YouTube videos are generally not reliable. Considering this only I rejected the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, this isn't a valid reason to reject a draft. Even if one source supplied is unreliable, that doesn't mean an entire draft has to be rejected. I express no opinion about the draft overall, but it does not rise and fall on the inclusion of one YouTube source. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 06:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Calliopejen1: Thank you for the information. I'm new to this. I'm still studying. Thank you once again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

   I got an alert from you that took me to the bottom of my talk page 
User talk:Deleteopedia
   There was an AfC new comment box that linked to my PRE-DRAFT sandbox page 
User:Deleteopedia/SandboxHoneycutt 
   I couldn't see a comment there and my PRE-DRAFTsandbox page had been deleted (I have since recreated it)
   My deleted PRE-DRAFT sandbox page had a red box saying you had moved it {somewhere? I'm not 100% sure where}. 
   I ?think? it said you moved it to my DRAFT page? 
Draft:James Honeycutt (Distinguished Professor of Communication)
        OK, I figured it out. 
        Instead of the DRAFT page I already created (link above), you made a new one 
Draft:James M. Honeycutt
   Wow that was confusing as hell! I finally found "view log" on the pages history for the page you moved/deleted
   From there I could see that where you moved it was q new page I didn't know about. LOL, glad that's over hehe 
Deleteopedia (
talk) 05:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey mate, oh that's so confusing. Ha. I left a comment on your submission saying 'Additional sources would be helpful'. Eagleash moved the page with a valid reason. So you can work from there from now, instead of doing it in the sandbox. Simple! 06:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Ken Tony and thanks! I finally found the comment.^{Shall we discuss?} <--- Love that!

I have a couple of other questions as well.

1) Are you guys doing an AfC review or just helping out? If you are does that comment mean I failed it?

2) Can you or possibly Eagleash explain why my sandbox had to get deleted, Isn't a sandbox mine to do with as I please? Also, ::why did it have to be moved/renamed. Couldn't we just used the Draft I already had?

3) On the "Additional sources would be helpful", what do you want the sources to help with? Can you give me some guidance on what you think is missing because it feels extremely well sourced to me. I dove pretty deep. I've got something like 5 Discipline specific Academic Encyclopedia, 7 Graduate and undergraduate textbooks, some book chapters, and more peer-reviewed journal articles than I cared to count. I also have different types of sources for the early life section, his profile on amazon, linked in, and his CV. I'm afraid its not going to get much better than that. He wasn't a famous child actor or anything that would make journalist write about him, just a regular high school/college kid back then. Can you let me know specifically what seems missing? Thanks so much Deleteopedia ( talk) 07:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Deleteopedia: Glad that you like my sign. Mate, we're reviewers at (Articles for creation), who can move drafts to mainspace/namespace, if the draft fulfills WP:GNG criteria and several other selected criteria. I only left a comment on the draft for you to see and work on it. It doesn't mean your draft has failed. You could say so if someone rejected or declined your draft upon submission. Your sandbox was deleted because, when the submission was moved to draft space, it served as duplicate. So that may be the reason that the user deleted your sandbox. I think there is WP:CSD criterion for that. You can recreate the sandbox, even if it's deleted after redirection. And the last thing. I was thinking that the table in draft, if more sourced, would be great. I didn't said it's mandatory. That's why I just left a comment instead of declining or rejecting the draft. In overall, I like the structure of the draft. You did a great job. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony Wow, thanks for the kind words. I've worked my ass off on it for over 6 months. I'm pretty excited to get it out of draft space, so please let me know if I can do anything that would help expedite that. Is there anything that comes with completing the Afc review, like does your page get the AfC stamp of approval or something like that?

I had a HUGE milestone just yesterday. I finally got the copyright for his picture straightened out with OTRS. I kid you not, that was the hardest part of the whole thing. OTRS man... what can you even say... shit-show. I emailed Honeycutt and asked him to give the license in February. He did it immediately, same day, but OTRS waits till mid-June finally approve it. OTRS basically trolled the Honeycutts (yep, they got his wife into it). The Honeycutts must be the most chill people in the world, because I was getting stressed just watching OTRS give them the run around for 5 months. Anyway, the war is over! I got the ticket number on the talk page, and Boom, no more copyright headaches! Deleteopedia ( talk) 08:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah mate, OTRS is a big deal. So what did they asked you to do? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony Not that I want to relive the trauma LOL, but I'll give you some of the highlights from the OTRS (now called VTRS) debacle.

OTRS didn't ask me (page author) to do anything (unless you count implying I should piss off as asking me to do something LOL). OTRS implied several times that the process didn't involve me, going so far as to unCC me on replies to the donor emails (the donors always re-CCed me, since I was the only one being helpful and not stonewalling them). If you think about that OTRS attitude, it's just plain dumb, because page authors drive the whole donation process by initiating it (zero people wake-up and spontaneously think, "today I'm going to donate a license to use the copyright I hold on this image of myself to Wikimedia Commons!). Then, still before OTRS even opens a ticket, page authors assist donors with preparing the license grant and sending it TO OTRS. After that, once OTRS opens a ticket, page authors connect the ticket number the content they are creating, OTRSs attitude towards me alternated between 1) the pseudo-hostility above, or 2) having zero clue who I was (despite clear identification of all parties to the ticket ), or 3) mistakenly thinking I was the donor/copyright holder (despite clear, explicit introduction as the page author).

OTRS asked Dr. & Mrs. Honeycutt (the donors) to do a ton. The first thing to know about that, is that the recent final approval from OTRS was based on the very first license grant Dr. Honeycutt ever sent, in his very first email to OTRS, on day one, back in February. EVERYTHING in the intervening five months was a completely unnecessary hassle for the donors (basically, they got trolled by OTRS). To be clear, neither Honeycutt ever failed to comply with OTRS requests, and always did so in less than 24 hours. 100% of it was OTRS ignorance, incompetence, or idiocy ("Three I's of OTRS" I'll call it, if I ever get around to writing my essay critiquing OTRS. Here is a sampling of all that: OTRS would ask them to send in stuff they had already sent in (and was in the very same email thread). OTRS would receive stuff (that they had specifically requested) and then reply with something that could be paraphrased as "thanks for sending us X, but I think another approach would be easier, so can you send us Y instead"? One of my favorites is that OTRS would ask for stuff that they had no possible was to comprehend, much less evaluate the legal accuracy of, and then just ignore the response and request some other info (For Example... OTRS REQUEST: "Please explain how the copyright was transferred by operation of law". Upon receipt of a concise answer {accompanied by an accurate, complete legal explanation with citations}, OTRS RESPONSE: "That is too complicated send us some other stuff instead".) OTRS received info they requested from people outside the ticket email chain (so they couldn't reply to it), receive it, and then open a new ticket for that info and not tell anyone in the original ticket about it. One OTRS volunteer just went away, forever (maybe quit?), politely waiting.. and more waiting... and finally we got another volunteer. Last, but definitely not least, is that someone very high up in that organization is apparently either an idiot, or insane, because they are training those volunteers to dispense legal advice without a licensee. It's not like they are in a grey area, it's more like they saw a clear line, then crossed, then shat on, then took picture as evidence and emailed them to tons of people, and proceeded further across the line. It's brazenly out in the open, OTRSs apparent reason for being is to make legal determinations about copyright ownership. That's beyond dumb, it's flat out illegal, a criminal misdemeanor in 40+ of the 50 US states. Even actual copyright lawyers would not be allowed to do that, unless they were members of the bar in the state the donor lived in. I have multiple instances in my emails of volunteers stating substantive legal conclusions based on their analysis of copyright law and the facts of the individual donor's case (that is literally the exact definition of proacting law without a licensee (not everywhere, but in most US states), so they are obviously being trained to operate that way. It's crazy man. OTRS is horribly structurally flawed from the top down. Like I said... shit-show. Deleteopedia ( talk) 02:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Deleteopedia: FWIW the sandbox was not actually deleted per se; but the draft was moved without leaving a redirect. This is a useful 'right' in my view, as an AfC reviewer, as what often happens (otherwise) is that the sandbox 'owner' will start a new item by over-writing the redirect and whoever created the redirect gets the blame / credit / messages. Eagleash ( talk) 09:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Eagleash, ahh ok. You guys did some work cleaning up the formatting for me, which I appreciate and don't wasn't to rollback, So I am making the version you created the main article (draft) now. I am going to keep my sandbox one as a development environment because I screw things up a lot on the first try LOL. For example, those custom tables I'm making (like the sortable on on the talk page under Notability Assessment > WP:NPROF(1). substantial impact) are ridiculously broken when I first make them. Also, I'm really looking forward to getting my page graded and moved to mainspace, so please let me know if there is anything I can do to expedite that process, or get a higher grade on it. Thanks! Deleteopedia ( talk) 02:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Deleteopedia: The draft is in the review system but it could take some considerable time before it is considered. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order and there are over 4,000 awaiting review, so what you have to do is be patient... Please do not be tempted to submit a duplicate draft or sandbox submission as this can cause some confusion and make extra work for other volunteers. Thank you. It really isn't worth worrying about the grading system; most new articles are 'stub' or 'start' class some might make a 'C' but anything much above that makes for a lot of hard work to maintain the grading which can be easily lost. Eagleash ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Respected Reviewing Member, I think the subject of the article has sufficient notability. For your kind notice the subject is the elected mayor of a big Municipal Corporation and she is a well known woman leader of that party for which I think she may deserve a page like other mayors who have their article on wikipedia. Please kindly look on the matter again. KnightD2H ( talk) 16:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello KnightD2H. In current status of the draft, it fails WP:POLITICIAN. You may read it. That person might be notable (I don't know. You said so), but there are no sufficient content or sources to prove that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir she was reported by several media outlets when she was elected as mayor and Sir mayor is not an ordinary post. In WP: Politician there is reference to person holding important offices. As you can check even Deputy Mayor of Birhanmumbai Municipal Corporation Suhas Wadkar has a page although he is not that great leader and sir I think a lady mayor deserve a place as it will help many women to find about her and can mentor them. That's my view on it Sir. Thanks..! KnightD2H ( talk) 17:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Not that great leader" - I meant that Suhas Wadkar has similar reference like Sunkara Pavani and if a male deputy Mayor can have a page why a woman mayor of similar notability can't have an article. KnightD2H ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ KnightD2H: See, I'm not against female nor have a mindset that women can't have an article in the mainspace. And the person you mentioned here has an article because it satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. He has got significant coverage. In the current status of your draft, it is not understandable what the person has got to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Read Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Local politicians and say what you think. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir I have added more references please check..! Thanks KnightD2H ( talk) 17:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes KnightD2H. I saw that bare citations and converted them. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sir..I think this references are enough to prove notability of the subject.Actually I forgot to add those references earlier. KnightD2H ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Mate, adding citations doesn't establish notability or reach it. I asked you to read Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Local politicians. Did you read that? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir,I have checked the Suhas Wadkar page and for my surprise I could not find any significant content about the subject except that the subject is being elected as deputy mayor. Sir, here the only difference is that I as a new editor submitted it for review instead of directly publishing the page and that article was directly created by an editor. And sir similarly Sunkara Pavani has also got significant media coverage as a mayor. With Regards..! KnightD2H ( talk) 04:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ KnightD2H: Then your draft will be declined again. In WP:POLITICIAN, it clearly says that, Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AfD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). As you said, if there is nothing available about this politician rather than being a mayor a place, this will surely fail notability criteria for politician. Hope you understood the situation. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir,What I am trying to make you understand is that how the deputy mayor Suhas Wadkar has an article page although he too doesn't have notability. It means that if I had created the article directly like Suhas Wadkar my article would have stayed. If my subject doesn't have notability than Suhas Wadkar too doesn't have notability than will you remove the article from mainspace? Kindly make me understand how Suhas Wadkar suits notability guidelines.With Regards..! KnightD2H ( talk) 06:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mate, he does pass notability criteria. I'm ptetty sure you haven't read the thing that I asked you to read. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes,I have read that's why I asked. Just tell me what is written in that article except that he is a deputy mayor of India's richest municapal corporation, elected unoppsed. I have read the resources too and I found no significant coverage about the subject. With Regards..! KnightD2H ( talk) 09:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ KnightD2H: The person has got significant coverage in leading news papers in India. Even when a search with his name in the internet, there are lot of sources coming up, which is direct opposite to the person in your draft. According to WP:POLITICIAN, it is said that: City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. As far as I'm concerned, that man is a deputy mayor of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, which is the richest municipal corporation in India, located in the metropolitan region of Mumbai. This, along with other factors as I said earlier is enough for that person's article to be fit in the namespace. In your draft's case, everything's opposite. Also try not to compare two pages located in two different spaces. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have searched "Suhas Wadkar" and the 1st result is from wikipedia, 2nd about Kishori Pednekar, 3rd from Twitter, 4th news from the Hindu about the election and again about being elected as deputy mayor and after that Facebook posts. And not a single article. And on the other hand you search my subject on Google you will find reference from The Hindu, many local news , thehansindia, Deccan Chronicle. KnightD2H ( talk) 12:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir with due respect I didn't find any article completely dedicated to Suhas Wadkar and I found them similar with my subject. Although my subject and her related news have been published repeatedly by leading newspapers. With Regards..! KnightD2H ( talk) 13:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello my friend, I think I've explained you enough regarding the status of the situation. Also there is no point in trying to prove that Suhas Wadkar's article fails notability criteria. That doesn't have anything to do with your draft. Your draft, in the current condition is not ready to go to the mainspace when constituted with the guidelines. I told you to read the guidelines properly. Even me myself has taken out some points and pointed out to you. I hope you understand. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello; Firstly, I want to thank you for re-reviewing my draft and mentioning the problem. Secondly, Do you mind to help me with finding reliable resources? with many thanks in advance. Atena ak2 ( talk) 22:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Atena ak2. It's great that you've understood the problem. You can make a good research on it and find reliable sources. I could only contribute a little because I've got many objectives to do and drafts to review. Drafts of this kind are also not under my scope. If possible, I'll help you find them. Thank you reaching out to me. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, firstly i want to thank you for reviewing my article. You left a note regarding how one of the criteria is that the person needs to be well-known. Berlando Deton is actually a well-known actor in Indonesia and Malaysia. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have a google knowledge panel https://g.co/kgs/iC7oaa and IMDB profile https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9447598/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0. So, I am now confused on how I can prove that the person in my article is suitable for wikipedia as i have already listed multiple reliable articles as references yet is still declined, so may ask for a feedback on what to do now?

Hello Dewi339458. Whenever you leave a comment on any of the talk page, after adding your comment, don't forget to sign at the end of it. It would be helpful for us in many ways. See, anyone can have a knowledge panel and IMDb is not a reliable source. It is edited by people. Most of the sources in the draft is not reliable. The last citation is one a perfect example. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

hello, sorry i'll sign this one. so, is there any way you can help out? what can I do now? -- Dewi339458 ( talk) 13:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Dewi339458: Replace them with reliable sources. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

hey, but i'm not sure which one is unreliable sir. i've changed the sources 3 times and deleted the informations that i don't have proof of. could you please help me. -- Dewi339458 ( talk) 22:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Dewi339458, take some time to read WP:SOURCE. You'll understand how to recognize a reliable source. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

hey, I have read WP:SOURCE , I think I know my mistake and I have removed the stream link and the apple music. I also have decided to instead put the discography in the external links. I think those were my mistakes and have resubmit it. could you please see and review the article again. Thank you. -- Dewi339458 ( talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Mate, right now, I'm a little busy doing some internal and external activities. I'll definitely make a visit sooner. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

alright, thank you. when you do and if you find any mistakes, please leave another feedback on which is wrong. thank you. -- Dewi339458 ( talk) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken. You recently declined my draft article entitled 'Frans Vera' because 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.' My draft was prepared by: 1. Translating the Dutch Wikipedia article which was accepted in 2011, with its associated Dutch citations which were also accepted then. 2. Expanding that article with further publications by Vera, and further reading and references, all in English. Can you elaborate on the 'inadequate support by reliable sources'? Is the problem that the original Wikipedia article's sources are in Dutch? As far as I know, they have not been translated into English, but are self-evidently sufficient for the Dutch Wikipedia editors and users. Or is the problem with my additional citations? Or what? Thanks.

Hai Masato.harada. Whenever you leave a message on any of the talk page, don't forget to sign at the end of the message. Signing can be done by typing four consecutive tiles. I rejected your draft because it has insufficient number of citations. Don't take the sentence about reliability so seriously now. I wanted to see more sources. That's what it was all about. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I don't think you've answered my question. The original Dutch entry must have had sufficient sources or it would not have been accepted, or is there inconsistency between reviewers? In addition, I added 6 more publications authored by Vera, 1 more reference, and 3 more items for further reading. How many is a 'sufficient number of citations'? Where specifically do I need more? Thanks. Masato.harada ( talk) 13:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Masato.harada: The Dutch article maybe would have been directly created from the namespace. Who knows? But in here, you created it in a draft and submitted it for reviewing. According to my observation, the amount of sources cited in that sized draft is not sufficient. You said right you've added 6 sources authored by Vera? That won't be helpful, because Wikipedia needs secondary sources to establish WP:GNG. If out of 7 sources, 6 are authored by the person mention in the draft, it is necessary to add further secondary and reliable sources to the draft. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the comment. If I can ask you, do you have any secondary/tertiary sources/websites you'd recommend for making manga pages? If not, it's fine, and I'll look myself. Thanks! Malcolm L. Mitchell ( talk) 13:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mate, avoid tertiary sources. I typed it by mistake. The article requires sufficient secondary sources. You may find them. I don't have enough time to invest in a topic that I'm not interested in. I think that's fine. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• MarcAnder79 ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Andreas Müller-Pohle ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MarcAnder79 ( talk) 15:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Hi Ken Tony, thank you for your feedback. Could you give me a hint which of the sources I used are insufficient? All of them are publicly available literature. Regards, Marc

Hai MarcAnder79. The draft requires additional reliable sources that is clear and easy to access. I believe you'll sort them out. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I have no idea which of the sources I used should NOT be reliable and acessible. The sources are perfect and even include ISBN. This is very discouraging.

Mate, don't forget to sign at the end. Okay okay, I could see that. There are many things that is to be done in the draft. First of all, take down that Vimeo source from the draft and replace it with a reliable sources. Secondly, the source in Exhibitions, Screenings, Installations (selection) section must be formatted properly. Thirdly, YouTube videos in the external links section must be omitted. Fourthly, the Categories section in the draft must be removed, as they're not linked to anything in the English Wikipedia and doesn't belong to EN Wikipedia. Fifthly, from Standard Data (person) section, the last link must be removed, as it has no importance in a draft (It is a tool). And finally, Literature (selection) section must be sourced. All these problems must be solved. I believe I've made it more specific. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the specific advice and sorry for missing the signature. I have executed it all and I hope the article is perfect now. Regarding the Vimeo link, however, I think it is important in the given context, as it leads to the artist's original work (it's his own site). The Wikipedia rules on this say, "Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission." - "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." Thx and cheers, Marc MarcAnder79 ( talk) 11:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

MarcAnder79, Wikipedia demands secondary sources in an article or a draft. You may read WP:PSTS. That source in my observation isn't reliable. I recommend you to find a new source to replace that. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, since I can't find any better source for the videos I deleted both Vimeo links. Thanks. MarcAnder79 ( talk) 16:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@ MarcAnder79: That's good. These things are normal. Sometimes, it happens. No problem. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, I would like to know why my resources are not reliable as some have come from the users verified topics page and BellaNaija.com is the most reliable Celebrity source in nigeria. Bankslogebhd ( talk) 21:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bankslogebhd. Your draft is unsourced. You haven't 'cited' any sources in the draft. I've left a comment on the page. You may see it and improve it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, I have taken out the links. Bankslogebhd ( talk) 18:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Good evening Bankslogebhd. The draft's personal life section must be written from a neutral point of view, and more sources are required in the career section. Sort them out and re-submit again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok Bro.Thanks For the quick heads up-- Godson Jr 11110 ( talk) 18:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep Godson Jr 11110. You can ask me doubts and questions whenever you want. I'll answer you. Happy editing. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

jordan has left kerela blasters and joined jamshedpur fc

@ 2401:4900:3849:9a41:1:1:38c0:de6f: No. Don't change anything. No official announcement has made so far. Until then, Murray is Blasters player. When an official statement arrives, you can change that. Also don't forget to sign at the end of the comment. It can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• PriyaWrites ( talk · contribs)
  • User:PriyaWrites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Can you highlight which text is copyrighted and requires fixing so that I can resubmit another draft?

I am a little unsure how to improve this draft because I don't know what parts are problematic for its acceptance. PriyaWrites ( talk) 10:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello PriyaWrites. About which draft you're talking? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Draft:Syed_Abdullah_Tariq

I'm talking about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriyaWrites ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@ PriyaWrites: Sorry for declining it with copyright reason. It was a mistake. A website called Wikitia copied your draft and moved it to their namespace. So, upon researching, I thought it was copied from there. I'm really sorry. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

So can it be accepted now? PriyaWrites ( talk) 10:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@ PriyaWrites: Hmm wait. I want to have a look at that draft once again, so that, if any requirements are needed, we can do fully that. Thanks. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ken Tony, thank you for the time you took to review my draft article on Museo Benini. Could you please clarify what further types of sources might remedy my lack of sources, cited as the reason for TD? I have been researching single and private artist museums (nationally/internationally) for four years and plan further articles for Wikipedia. This clarification will be very helpful.

Regarding the sources I did cite for MB article - Glasstire magazine is the "oldest online-only art magazine in the country" with 1.4 million annual page views, 870,000 visits. Sightlines Magazine is an "open access online magazine in arts, culture, news and ideas" with a viewable mission & ethics statement. Both are 501c-3 entities. I have no affiliation with either source and receive no remuneration from them or any of the artists or museums that I research and write about. In the course of my research sometimes I interview the museum directors or artist if they are amenable and close geographically. I keep my writing fact based and non-promotional.

Would exhibition catalogs with statements about the artist from museum directors and curators be considered a noteworthy source?

Thank you in advance for your insights.

LisaBGiamporcaro ( talk) 17:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Friend, the exact reason why I rejected your draft was because it is not adequately supported by sources. There are only two citations in there. That's what all was about. Also, you shall not add your own research. See WP:NOR. Everything should be well sourced. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Draft:M._R._Kamala

> The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

I have the following message in the draft wiki. I am new to adding content to wikipedia. I went through the wiki, I don't quite understand what more referencing I would need to add. The provided references are the content that I have used in the wiki. Appreciate if you can share any suggestions, thank you in advance!

@ 2620:10D:C090:400:0:0:5:8AB7: Whenever you add a message on any of the talk page, don't forget to sign at the end of the comment. It can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. The time when I reviewed the draft, it didn't hard any inline citations. There were sources, but they weren't cited to the content. Now I can see that you've cited them. So problem solved. You can re-submit it again. Someone else will review it. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Appreciate you taking a look. and replying to the comment. 2620:10D:C090:400:0:0:5:8AB7 ( talk) 19:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, Regarding the decline on my Draft:Haris_Doukas, I could really appreciate some help on what to change in my page so that it is accepted. 1. most comments refer to it being sited under WP:PROF. Should I just change the category? 2. Notability under WP:PROF is covered by the following: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

3. External links have been removed from the text body already 4. Many external references are included

What else could i add/correct? Can you guide me please since this is the 4th time my article is rejected, and I noticed similar Pages dedicated to professors with far less information included?

Thank you Integrative13 ( talk) 14:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Integrative13. Now, I'm on a small break from AfC reviewing. I got to have more studies before reviewing further more drafts. This draft was reviewed by me 8 days back. I owe you an apology. I would recommend you to talk with Calliopejen1 about this draft (I've pinged him). He will come here. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, Integrative13 I generally don't review professor drafts. I'm pinging DGG who does and can probably assist! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 15:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Calliopejen1: Anything as you wish. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Integrative13 , For WP:PROF, which of these criteria do you think he meets? I told you previously what information needed to be supplied. You can't just refer to GoogleScholar for a list of publications,; if you want to show notability by citations to the published works, you need to `add the list of 5 most cited articles with the number of citations. In addition, the title Dr. is not used in an encyclopedia --just in press releases or the like.

If the criteria proposed is the GNG, there needs to be substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices. There is not a single reference that meets this standard--they're all links to his own publications or to the list of people in an organization.

much more important, since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. Or if it is an autobiography, you must say so. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ Ken Tony: I thought I'd ask you here to do this, on your talk page as it is a bit out the way of the admin board on NPP or AFC. It is for admin. I've found several drafts:

• Draft:Haris Doukas
• Draft:Sri Gautam Chatterjee
• Draft:S Santosh Kumar
• Draft:Phurba Sherpa
• Draft:Jojo Cyriac George
• Draft:Dr. Shambhunath Singh Research Foundation
• Draft:Upneet Lalli
• Draft:Anant Vidhaat

It looks a lot but its not much. I brought that Harris Doukas. To check that you use Google Scholar. There is the Google scholar link for the his page: [11]. Take a look at it. There is 9 papers with more than 100 citations. Somebody that is measured under WP:NPROF has got a graded notability. If they have more than 5 papers with 100 citations then they likely notable. If they are editing a book series, they are likely notable. If they are in a learned society. They are notable, like the IEEE or Royal society, they are notable. If they are on a named chair, the Regius professor, notable. Take a look at NPROF and take a look at google scholar and get back to me. If DGG shows up or David Epstein, follow their advice. scope_creep ^Talk 19:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Scope creep for the comment. Actually, now I've decided not to review anymore academics' drafts. It seems very complex for me to do. But this piece of information is very useful. If one day, I come across such drafts, it would be helpful for me to review. Thank you for that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, thank your for reviewing the article of Draft:Dhanraj Nathwani.

I have so far edited this AFC with most efforts and tried to make it as wiki-friendly as possible. I have noticed so far that there are many articles live and published on wikipedia on persons related wikis with so less references but I have created this article with multiple number of references from reliable sources which are acceptable by wikipedia which is The Hindu WP:THEHINDU, Indian Express WP:INDIANEXP, Times of India WP:TOI as stated in reliable sources list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources & Wikipedia:News sources/India. Now, also added secondary sources from reliable sources as well.

Not only that, On Wikipedia there are many living person's articles published previously where notability is not there at all & even number of references and secondary sources are very low but still the articles are live on WikiPedia and here are the example of such articles: Rudratej Singh, Rameshwarlal Kabra, Sunit Khatau, Muljibhai Madhvani, Ghanshyam Binani, Ravindra Reddy, Jaikrishan Jajoo, Achal Bakeri & Ratilal Chandaria. So, these articles on living persons are mostly not having secondary sources and very less reference links. In the case of my created AFC, article gets declined on the basis of notability where there are many articles available where notability is zero still article is published directly. which is disheartening.

Please note, this is not first article I am trying to create and I have contributed to wikipedia since long time and created many articles especially subjects related to Gujarat. The subject in this AFC is the vice president of GCA i.e Gujarat Cricket Association, which is Cricket Body of Gujarat, India. Apart from that the subject of AFC is also playing important role in one of the largest Indian company Reliance Industries Limited, I humbly request you to re-look into this article and kindly point-out the issue in it: anything like grammatical mistake, citation mistake or anything which is missing.

I agree, if this article is marked as stub as I am looking forward to edit this article and expand it further even it gets published.

I have tried again and edited the article once again with significant changes as asked.

Awaiting your response. હમઝા ઘાંચી (Talk) 19:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@ હમઝા ઘાંચી: Will give you a perfect response later. Now, I'm under an educational process regarding drafts. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken -

Sorry for not sighting a source on my edits to the Jim Harbaugh page. In reference to his sister Joani Harbaugh, here are a few sources including her husband's (Tom Crean) Wikipedia page where she is mentioned as the younger sister of Jim and John Harbaugh.

/info/en/?search=Tom_Crean_(basketball) https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/look-jim-and-john-harbaugh-in-attendance-for-indiana-unc/ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/sports/football/super-bowl-there-is-a-harbaugh-sister-too.html

Hai CedarR. Don't forget to sign at the end of the comment. It can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. And, if you got sources, you can cite it. There is no problem in that. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Sri Gautam Chatterjee

@ Ken Tony: Right, no worries. It actually easier for NPROF, if there are 5 papers with 100+ cites then the person is auto notable. Understand what your saying. Park that for the future I guess. Lets look at Draft:Sri Gautam Chatterjee. When you look at it, there are three minor things wrong with it. It is a good thing to get to try and clean it up. They are no bad things. The Book image and the two goodread refs. They are WP:SPS, written by folk not under editorial control, or peer reviews. So they can anything. They are not allowed as sources, non-Reliable soure. Tell the guy to remove them. They is a script you can get that highlights bad references. You can ask at Afc they will show you were it is. That is structure. To Review it: In the lede, it says He has received numerous awards and honours including the Nad Vachaspati[1] and Ravi Dave Smriti Samman[2][3]. The first thing is to try and find the award, and see if they are notable. There are many many many many awards and the majority are rubbish. Everybody wants an award as it's the best chance of getting an article. If that is a prestigious award, the person is probably notable. Right, have a look at the refs. There is thing in Afc, known as WP:THREE, it is well know. The first small block of references should validate the article per WP:V. If there are good, deep, independent, secondary, WP:SECONDARY references for a WP:BLP in that first small block, then person is notable. There is not there, there is no point looking for them. Human nature tell that will try and make an impression in the first small block. So you can look at the first 5 or 10, or however many in the first column. So lets have a look at them. I have translate them.

Ref 1. [12] This is a new literary magazine, by established writer. Have a look at the article, in English, identifies as a poet. Seems a decent ref.

Ref 2. [13]. Looks like a newspaper. given to the country's famous playwright and film director Dr. Gautam Chatterjee; So that is good.

Ref 3. [14]. Combined with the two awards he is likely notable. They are no well known, but most awards aren't. They are given by everybody to everybody, so they are millions of them. If there was a reference to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, then the awards would need to be evaluated. But I think he is notable. Lastly, the article has some weasel words. A brilliant playwright. That is WP:PUFF. He is either playright and is proficient, or he isn't.

Before I go for today let's quickly look at this one: Draft:Dhanraj Nathwani. I wouldn't have probably rejected that outright as more than 4 peoples have looked at it, so it becomes a time-wasting problem. It is waste of time. This article has been written by a WP:UPE who has had several articles deleted as they are junk and promotional. Look at User:હમઝા ઘાંચી. There is no declaration to say he is paid, but that guy Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani has paid him to create the page. It has all the looks of it. In that instance I would reject the article, then post a WP:PAID notice on his page, so the administration can examine his edits. Take a look at his references. The first one starts off with a company document. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV and is not WP:SECONDARY. I will leave it there for the moment. scope_creep ^Talk 14:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, thank you for today's lesson. I'm very grateful that you remembered to mentor me. Thank you once again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I have noticed that you have interest in footabll and i want to ask you that i have written a article User:Brascoian/Palauni Tapusoa its about a football player can you please check it out and give me some feedback. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hai Brascoian. Yes, I will check that out. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi happy to write to you, I found an article, Draft:Sandhya Mohan is rejected from publication, you reviewed it as not to publish now. Kindly please tell me how can I enrich it to get it publish through the proper channel. Because its one of the old article I wrote and I believe it is having enough strength to get it to publish atleast as a stub article.

Thanking you sir.

Expecting your reply Rahul Soman ^{Discussions - contribs} 13:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rahulsoman. This draft was reviewed by almost two weeks back. I'm still studying AfC guidelines thoroughly. I've already mentioned the reason for the declining of your draft. Anyway, I'll tell you the reason I left on that day again. The draft overused an almost unreliable source, from where you copied the lead section, contradicting WP:PARAPHRASE. Also, there was also a presence of speculative information in the career section. Try to sort these problems out and re-submit it again. Someone else may review it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ken Tony... Rahul Soman ^{Discussions - contribs} 20:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, There is an issue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palauni Tapusoa can you please help me. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey mate, you could have just continued the conversation in the first section you created. There is no problem in that. Coming back to the topic. Sad to say, your creation will not go the mainspace as of now. There are two reasons for it. Firstly, the person fails WP:GNG, which eliminates the chances of the draft entering the mainspace by WP:NFOOTY criteria. Secondly, the person has played in a league that is not fully professional as listed in WP:FPL. So, your creation, as of now, is not eligible to go the mainspace. Hope you will understand. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You rejected draft: Suriya Jayanti, claiming there were copyright violations. This is in error, as I wrote the entire article from scratch AND provided citations/references for everything. Please can you fix your mistake? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.30.130 ( talk) 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 172.58.30.130: It was a mistake. You can re-submit it. Thank you and sorry. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking the time recently to review the Hyperautomation draft. I'm reaching out to see if you would be willing to review the draft once more. I've added additional references which have been published since the draft was originally submitted for review. In my opinion, these new references provide significant coverage of the topic from sources that have been identified as generally reliable, in addition to the remaining references. For ease of reviewing, references 3, 4, 5 and 7 are the newest ones added. Would you agree that the references in the draft are enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Thank you! JMGAppian ( talk) 19:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello JMGAppian. Now, I'm on a break from reviewing AfC. It's great to hear that you've improved the draft. You may ask any other reviewer to review it for a time being. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 21:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Oddparents ( talk) 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Hi Ken Tony, I have re-worked on the draft of Falguni Nayar. Please can you recheck the page and let me know if the updated draft is good or if it needs any more changes.

Hai Oddparents. i'm on a break from reviewing any kinds of drafts at AfC, but I'll tell you the things I observed from the draft. The career section, in some parts, is still written like an advertisement. There is no need of writing about the company's statistics. The draft is a WP:BLP. You may try to correct that, and re-submit it. Someone else may review it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Read the article on the members 100.40.11.12 ( talk) 18:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 100.40.11.12: Friend, your addition might be true, but there should be source to support your claim. You may add a citation next to your addition. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Just read it 100.40.11.12 ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 100.40.11.12: Yeah, know that. Citing of sources are very important in Wikipedia to support the claim, even if the event is well-known or is the truth. Add a citation next to it. That would be helpful. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Just curious about the Aziza Kibibi article and why it was rejected. Your reasoning, as mentioned on my page was that Aziza did not qualify for a Wikipedia article, because she hadn't received significant coverage in independent, published, reliable, secondary sources. Yet I quoted a respected New Jersey news site, which gets contributions from area county newspapers. I also cited Glamour magazine, a national women's magazine known just as much for its feature journalism as lifestyle topics. Weren't these significant enough? The feedback didn't include any specific references to specific areas to correct, so that makes it hard to address this in a way that isn't exhaustive or overcorrecting.

Can you be more specific about the sources and any other specific areas of the article that should be addressed?

-- LaurenOlamina ( talk) 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Lauren O.

@ LaurenOlamina: I reviewed the it 2 weeks back. You can re-submit your draft. Now, I'm not assessing anything, as I'm on a break from reviewing. Someone else will review it and will say what is required (if anything is pending). I'm still studying AfC more clearly. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 07:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

On June 18 last, you were so kind to ask me for an example of articles on former Presidents of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas ( = Society of New Testament Studies). I already mentioned to you the article “James Dunn (theologian)”. Similar articles in Wikipedia are those on (1) Graham Stanton, (2) Christopher M. Tuckett, and (3) Francois Bovon. There are dozens more.

The article “Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas” gives a list of all former Presidents. It includes “H.J. de Jonge” as President for 2012.

Could you tell me please what can be done to make the draft “Henk Jan de Jonge” acceptable? I realize you are not obliged to reply, but any advice would be highly appreciated.

2A02:A465:C8D5:1:B80A:5789:DBD7:E263 ( talk) 08:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@ 2A02:A465:C8D5:1:B80A:5789:DBD7:E263: User:Scope creep moved the draft to mainspace. Good work. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mate, I've one thing to ask. I've already WP:THREE before and read it once again. I'm in a confusion. Does this say that three good sources are enough to meet WP:GNG? What if the other sources are unreliable (If WP:THREE says that three sources are enough to pass WP:GNG)? Eagerly waiting for your response. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Ken Tony: Three good sources are needed to prove the article is notable, depending on type of article. If its an academic, then WP:NPROF, if its organisation, WP:NCORP, if its a musciain, WP:MUSICBIO. If its an entertainer WP:ENT, if its an author WP:AUTHOR. So for example, if it was an organisation, the three sources would need to satisfy NCORP, but not all references need to go to prove the organisation is notable. But every sentence in an article generally need a ref, now. If a WP:BLP, every sentence needs a ref. If its an org, every sentence needs an org. If you see a block of text on some celebrity article, or a writer, then decline it as unsourced, until the editor adds sources to those refs. Even if it has 60 sources, if they're is a section unsourced, decline it. If they're is three sources, and the rest are unreliable, then inform the editor, if its at afc and you decide whether to accept or decline. In that instance, it passing work on somebody else. You should minimise it, and get the editor to do as much work as possible. If it is NPP, then post an appropriate tag so it gets onto a maintenance list and tell the editor it needs fixed. scope_creep ^Talk 08:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I fixed that Draft:Henk Jan de Jonge to mainspaced. If somebody is a professor emeritus, then it means they are notable. If you can't read the references, you must assume WP:AGF, meaning they are valid. They are academic refs on the article. scope_creep ^Talk 08:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going on holiday for two weeks. Give me a shout when I get back. scope_creep ^Talk 08:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Scope creep. You may enjoy your holidays. I'll be here. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony scope_creep, WP:THREE is not a policy of the encyclopedia like [[WP:NPOV], which "have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow." (from WP:POLICY sldo implies thee can be special situations where we do not follow them exactly as written; it is not a guideline like WP:GNG which gives "best practices supported by consensus. [which] editors should attempt to follow," though "occasional exceptions may apply". It is not even an essay, which is "opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established" (though the degree of acceptance can vary widely--some are treated as guidelines in some areas of the encyclopedia). It's a usespace essay, which is a personal statement, sometimes one that might even contradict widespread consensus"

it is RoySmith's opinion or advice, which in this case not just they, but a number of other editors give it as their advice also. As written, it's not a statement of either the minimum or maximum number of references, butt a strategy for writing an article that might be challenged at AfD--its original purpose is to discourage using an excessive numbers of references just repeating each other or dealing with unrelated points, which can just confuse people. The typical use of it is for someone at AfdD to ask, what are the Three really best references that establish notability . It often focusses the discussion. It's also used by some editors as advice at AfC--make sure that there are three unmistakably good references, and the article is likely to be accepted at AfC and be kept if there's an AfD, if there are no other problems like promotionalism or copyvio or original research. I use it to give the advice–before you even start writing make sure you have three good references--it's usually better than to first write the article and only then look for references.

Having 3 references doesn't mean it will always pass afd, if they're not really reliable independent substantial sources. Having only one will sometimes pass afd, if it establishes something that is always considered notable . Having none at all is never acceptable, for without references an article fails the fundamental policy WP:V, for there is no way to verify it.

There's another fundamental policy, WP:IAR , which says to do what will be "improving the encyclopedia ". I usually restate as "we make the rules; we can make the exceptions". What is necessary at WP is to follow consensus, which can and does vary. A blind reliance on the written rules does not determine how we in practice interpret and use them. (And all of what I've said here is my advice, the way I would word things. I think it's good advice, for I try to be conservative in offering advice. But other's opinions may differ. ) DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DGG for coming out here and utilising your valuable time to make me familiar with all these things. This would be very helpful. I'm so grateful to study from veterans like you and Scope creep, who try to make me understand Wikipedia more in terms of policies and guidelines. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I'd add is that you should read User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You may not notice that I have given several reasons in each of the edit summaries. [15] I do not get what exactly the problem with your allegation of saying to me "remove content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary" over my talk page. On the contrary, you would be the one to give me the valid reason for reverting my edits without giving proper elaborations. 123.195.130.73 ( talk) 10:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A Finnish Christmas ham Hello, Ken Tony. The article for improvement of the week is: Christmas ham Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Alida Morberg • Savoriness Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Very respectfully, the addition of "Venus" to "transit" does not require the addition of a reliable source. The addition merely clarifies text that is otherwise mildly ambiguous. Thank you Iriskayak ( talk) 06:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

About which article you're speaking? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The eclipse article you reverted at 06:24, about 12 minutes ago. Thank you. Iriskayak ( talk) 06:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Iriskayak: Let me check. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Iriskayak: I saw your edit and read the present citation. The citation mentions about the thing. I found out that after reading it by myself. You could have just mentioned about it in the summary. In fact, you didn't even write the summary. Summary helps other editors understand what changes you've made into a page. I got your edit from pending changes list. If you mentioned in the summary that the already present citation mentions about the inclusion, I wouldn't have reverted your inclusion. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ken,

You rejected my article Draft:Suriya Jayanti citing copyright issues. I find this very confusing, as not only did I write the entire thing myself, not copying anything, but I also provided references and citations for everything, per instructions. I thus think you've made a mistake in your review, and request that you revisit the draft. If you can tell me a single part that is copyrighted or not attributed correctly, I'll happily revise it . . . but as there aren't any sections I copied or didn't attribute, I'm at a loss of how to revise it absent your direction. Will you reconsider?

Thanks,

BabydinoX

Hello BabydinoX. That rejection was a mistake. As a result, I'm on a break from reviewing any drafts to study more about AfC. You may re-submit that draft. Someone else may review it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey,

I have resubmitted the article as you asked: /info/en/?search=Draft:Syed_Abdullah_Tariq

How will things proceed now?

Regards, PriyaWrites ( talk) 12:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@ PriyaWrites: It depends upon the way you wrote the article and the way the reviewer reviews it. Good luck. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, I wanted to clarify this revert that you made with the edit summary "Citation should be converted". The citation provided does support the content added by the user so I'm not sure why you reverted it. Could you clarify what you meant in the edit summary. Thanks. EN- Jungwon 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@ EN-Jungwon: I didn't look the source. I said the inclusion is cited but not converted constructively. That's why I reverted it by saying WP:AGF. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you please guide me on how to tell if a secondary source is reliable ? There are a few posts about the company all over the internet... Of course there are not from New York Times or the Wallstreet Journal. They are from small technology blogs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerophongr ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bellerophongr. If you like reading, please take time to read WP:PSTS. After reading, if you're still confused, come back to me again. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 10:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I was looking an other article about a CNC machines manufacturer ( /info/en/?search=Haas_Automation)

I believe I 've added more secondary sources than the article for Haas and of course the links I added are not broken. I will read again the PSTS and I will come back to you if I need any extra help.

Thank you for your time

Take your own time red read it mate. Any queries, I'll be here. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, I just added an other reference. Is this ref considered primary or secondary ? I am really confused...

^[1]

@ Bellerophongr: A primary source is not always an independent source. It will be written by people having close connection to the subject. A secondary sources provides the opinion of an author based on the primary sources which in most of the cases are independent and reliable. A simple example given in WP:SECONDARY to determine the difference: A review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. To identify a primary sources, I would recommend you to see WP:IDENTIFYPRIMARY. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! You recently removed my edit on the Bobby Sands page citing the Verifiability Policy. Could you detail more on why my addition failed to meet that requirement? The same source, the Bobby Sands Trust, was cited in a book I read recently ^[1]. FelpixTheMaker ( talk) 14:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I reverted your inclusion saying "Unsourced informations are present". Have a look once again. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ken Tony, I have gone through my draft, please can you check it for me, Kind regards Bankslogebhd ( talk) 17:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Bankslogebhd: I won't be reviewing it (if submitted), because I decided not to review any more draft for an extended period of time. But I'll read it and tell you what I felt from the status of the draft. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Bankslogebhd: I read it and noticed that in some parts of the career section of the draft, it is not written from a neutral point of view. And, one or two sources are not cited but is linked as an external source. Try to sort them out. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ken Tony, how do you write from a neutral point of view?

Bankslogebhd ( talk) 18:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Bankslogebhd: See WP:YESPOV. Regards. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Salaam alaikum. It's extremely foolish to have removed my edit for "not supporting my claims" As the information I added was referenced in the ready cited sources. It was literally in the headline as well. The Muslim Maestro ( talk) 18:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello The Muslim Maestro. The thing mentioning it have might be cited in some other part in the article, but in WP, it is very important to add citation to every single thing that we include in a BLP. At least, you could have just mentioned about it in the summary. That would have reduced the chances of me reverting your editing and handing you a waning. Hope you understood the situation. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to do mate. Are you saying I need to find an additional source for my claim even though it's stated in the already 3 sources present? The Muslim Maestro ( talk) 21:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@ The Muslim Maestro: You don't need to find a new source. Just copy paste the source next to your claim supporting your addition. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is Sam-E (14:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)). For Good Luck Charlie, its primary director of photographer (cinematographer) is John Simmons for most of the series and its primary editor for the whole series is Andy Zall. The proof is at this IMDB address (( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1415889/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.128.173 ( talk) 15:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@ 100.15.128.173: If you got sources, you can add it. But IMDb is not a reliable source as it is maintained by different people. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

before evrey euro match i update thier caps so i updated joe Allens caps but you guys keep blocking me so pls dont

Hello Ashmash360. Whenever you leave a message on a talk page, don't forget to sign at the end of the message. It can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Coming back to the topic. You can only update the caps and goals of a player, once the match is over. No source will be updating it before matches. In fact, every sources will update it the game is over. So you have be patient and should update it after the matches. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 09:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ken

My first draft was rejected for not sufficiently notable, and I have added more contents to the draft. I'd appreciate it very much if you could take a look whether it's good enough or not. /info/en/?search=Draft:The_Order_of_Musashi_Shinobi_Samurai

Thank you. Vanessa

Hello Vanessa. Your draft is rejected. There is nothing I can do now. Also, I'm not reviewing any drafts until I feel that I'm more eligible to review them (I want to study more about AfC). Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ken Tony:

First, thank you for reviewing my draft of Marty Simon and for your time.

I have made some adjustments to the copy since it was first suggested that I do: I did remove the Discogs references as requested, and was about to do the same with the AllMusic and IMDb references.

But then I kept finding similar references on other Wikipedia entries I was visiting, and became confused.

You see, I've been told IMDb, YouTube, Discogs, Allmusic and, even Wikipedia, are not considered reliable sources.Yet, when I turn to the official Eric Clapton Wikipedia page ( /info/en/?search=Eric_Clapton),I find the following listed in the References section:  #8, #31, #45, #51, #52, #53, #70, #95, #98, #99, #104, #144, #187, #235, #236 are from AllMusic; #177, #207, #208 amd #210 are from YouTube and #233 is from IMDb. #101 is from All Movie Guide, which I believe is the cinematic equivalent of All Music Guide. And in the External Links section, there are direct connections to Discogs and IMDb for those who want further info on Clapton's career. I saw consistently in many musician and music artist Wikipedia pages as I searched for alternative sources and solutions.

At this point, I should tell you that the reason I'm interested in Marty Simon is that he's a fascinating anomaly in the Canadian music scene. He spent the '70s recording with Brian Eno - he contributes drums to a few tracks on "Here Come The Warm Jets" and then spent a good portion of the next decade contributing to the Quebec music scene. I could go on but you've read my draft.

My biggest challenge has been to find sources that qualify for what I think Wikipedia would find acceptable and credible. I feel there's a lot out there, but much of it is buried in the sands of time, as newspapers and magazines that have covered different facets of his career either have removed public digital access to their archives because they're decades old or they've gone out of business. Quebec sources have proved extremely frustrating and more difficult to dig up.

I completely understand why Wiki would want to avoid fan-generated pages, but I don't understand why some of the ones that I do provide are deemed unacceptable, although they're used elsewhere in Wiki.

Perhaps you can offer me some direction?

I've been constantly readjusting my draft - many due to coding mistakes I've made along the way - and others due to trying to be as meticulous as I can with unearthing new information about Marty Simon's diverse career - and I've spent more than a year off-and-on getting it to where I thought it was finally ready. I've put a lot of work into this and while it's been fun, I'd really like for my persistence to pay off in getting this Marty Simon entry posted on Wikipedia.

Is there a way to look at the edits I've made and help with any final guidance so you approve and post the entry? Thank you Ken Tony for any assistance and insight you can provide, and I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future, 

Best regards,

Octopus69

Octopus69 ( talk) 03:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Octopus69. First of all, I'm on a break from reviewing AfC, but still I'll tell you the difference. Eric Clapton's article is a B-class article meaning the article conveys almost all of the information. It also have more than 200 sources with some sentences cited twice, to support the length of the article. I don't know about the reliability of Discogs, Allmusic etc, but, on that day, I rejected your draft because the draft contained an excess number of sources coming from IMDb and YouTube. It is still there. You may sort that out and re-submit it. Some other reviewer will review it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed the message you left on my talk page about an edit I recently made to the Video game controversy article. You mentioned that I failed to leave a reason for my edits; I presume you used the "Pending changes" view, which actually combined two of my edits into one and hid the message for my first edit, which contains the explanations for the change. (I remember thinking this view would cause a problem.)

The edit history will show my former edit with the following explanation:

Removed an incorrect information: the shooter was sarcastic when saying video games "trained" him. The linked articles mentions that he discarded the idea immediately after mentioning it, and the Wikipedia article related to the shooting ( /info/en/?search=Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Manifesto, third paragraph) refers to three articles (refs. 186, 187, and 188) with more details.

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page; please let me know if the above explanation is appropriate and valid, and if my edit should be brought back. (I will not take the initiative to re-add it immediately, I will wait for your feedback.)

-- Skencer11 ( talk) 18:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Skencer11. Your assumption is correct. I got your edit(s) from the pending changes list, which would only allow us to see only one previous revision. So, it was not able for me to see your first summary. I'm not expertising in gaming topics nor have any idea about the topic. You may try to change the content in the article again (if there is a valid reason, you can), and see the result. If it is reverted again, you may seek Teahouse for the help. There you can find many people who can possibly help you. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that you declined the article List of Atlas LV3C launches and asked to put inline citations in it. Why does it need inline citations?

@ 100.2.238.109: Always remember to sign at the end of the every comment you make in any of the talk pages. It can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. Coming back to the topic. Wikipedia has guidelines regarding citing inline sources in a page. Your draft lacks inline citations. You may add those and re-submit it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the issues and resumbited it. Can you review it?

@ Ken Tony:

@ 100.2.238.109: I have no idea regarding this topic. I have to look the guidelines for the particular topic. As you have re-submitted the draft, you may do one thing. Leave a message in Teahouse saying review my draft. There you might find a person who deals with these kind of topics. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. @ Ken Tony:

@ 100.2.238.109: You're welcome. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Hope you are doing well and thanks again for taking the time to review the previous submission. I've added a lot more references from various sources that I hope work. I also have a list of more references from websites that mention the artist but nothing really to add to the article. I can post the links in a reply if you want to take a look at them to see if I can use them or add them to the external links section if it helps. This is in regards to the Jean-Marie Haessle draft. OneEyedWolf ( talk) 20:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello OneEyedWolf. Made a visit to the draft. It's great to see the draft improved. You may go on and re-submit it. A reviewer will come and review it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the transliteration of the quote was incorrect, which is why I changed it from "ee" to "i", the correct transliteration of the Russian phrase. Thanks.

@ 67.183.66.79: Don't forget to sign at the end of the comment. It can be done by typing four consecutive tildes. You may provide a source to prove your change, next to your addition. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?}

The grammatical errors were already present in the original, and your revert did not fix them. But you did reintroduce a ton of promotional bullshit material that I'd just removed. 82.17.168.217 ( talk) 09:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello friend. It would be nice if you keep civility in your messages. I saw grammatical errors in your inclusion (beginning of an heading you included was not capital). I was mentioning that. If possible, fix it. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, "promotional bullshit" is just a common phrase that you'll see a lot around here, sorry if it offended you. I did not add any sentence using the wrong case - this is the entirety of my changes, and I do not see any grammar errors introduced (The heading is debatable, but not a reason for reverting). But that's beside the point anyway. You should not revert a series of clearly good changes just because you think you see a grammar error among them. You should carefully examine the totality of the changes, and only revert them if you are reverting to a clearly better version. I appreciate your attention to new changes and your efforts to keep bad changes out, but in this case you were reverting to a clearly worse version. Anyway, all is well now - so cheerio, and it was nice meeting you. 82.17.168.217 ( talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@ 82.17.168.217: My only concern was that the heading's beginning words weren't capitalised. You may do as you wish. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?}

Sure, and sorry to carry on about this. But you really must not make large scale reverts just to fix one miscapitalised letter. Just change the letter yourself, or leave it miscapitalised if you don't feel like doing that. But *do not* damage the encyclopedia by making destructive reverts of obvious improvements just because you find a single letter wrong. That's what I'm trying to get over to you - not arguing about the capital letter itself. And I would like to know that you do understand this point. 82.17.168.217 ( talk) 13:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ken Tony:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!