User talk:Vanderwaalforces

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2023/08 (August); 2023/09 (September); 2023/10 (October); 2023/11 (November); 2023/12 (December); 2024/01 (January); 2024/02 (February); 2024/03 (March); 2024/04 (April); 2024/05 (May); 2024/06 (June); 2024/07 (July); 2024/08 (August); 2024/09 (September); 2024/10 (October);

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Vanderwaalforces's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Scam Watch

Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information.
If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.

Space Cup Denial

Hello. You denied my page on the space cup citing a lack of sources, when these sources A) were gathered from other places on Wikipedia, B) Contained patent filings from the original inventor of the cup and his direct statements on it, and C) Were numerous and diverse.

Please rescind this blockage and allow my page to go live. What more could be done to remedy this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspinty1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gspinty1 Hi there. The page wasn't only unsuitable but also a promotion, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for advertising. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a promotion? Gspinty1 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanderwaalforcesHow is it a promotion? No one commercializes it. It's a historical invention referenced across Wikipedia, yet with no page of its own. I just wanted to change that.

And how does that have anything to do with the "lack of citations" that you originally denied this for? Gspinty1 (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gspinty1 You obviously didn't bother to find out why your draft (which was promotional and deleted by Jimfbleak). It wasn't just "lack of citations" but lack of citations to reliable sources, see what reliable sources are. The draft was also not suitable because you were trying to promote yourself? or something you have a connection to. It is clear from your username similarity. If you were trying to write about yourself, see the guideline about writing about yourself because you are strongly discouraged to do so. If you were writing about something/someone you are connected to, see the conflict-of-interest policy, which should give you extensive details on how to disclose your COI if you have any. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not writing about myself, I'm not accomplished enough to be an astronaut. But I do appreciate spaceflight history and microgravity discoveries, which this cup qualifies for and is why I made it. This item is not commercialized, and I certainly don't incur any financial or social benefit from it. And username similarity? For my username..... Gspinty1? On what context? I'm sorry, but that is completely baseless and assumptive.

And as I said in my first message inquiry, my citations were literally taken from primary and published sources, with insights from the inventor, ALL used on currently published Wikipedia pages. Everything was factual and every claim with an ounce of subjectivity received a citation to back it up.

I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, but this blockage has 0 merit whatsoever. I'll review over the citations again on your recommendation, make some changes, and then just try again. Gspinty1 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gspinty1 You should follow recommendations and try again, I am not specifically interested in the draft so, feel free to not come to me when you're done. There are hundreds of other active reviewers that might find it before I do. Happy editing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I'd hope so, cheers mate. I'll remove all this to declutter your page. Gspinty1 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gspinty1 Please, do not remove them. I'd prefer to keep them as is. Thanks. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Kagoj

Dear Sir

I did not create this article prior to its publishing. Even someone made a mistake on my computer about it, and I apologize. However, this article is pretty good because of the good movie. I apologize for that. I believe you could support it from your end. Is there any possibility of making it live given that all of the sources are genuine?

regards Urmeesalma (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urmeesalma Hi there, I totally understand your point of view. SafariScribe you actually reviewed and declined this draft. You could respond to them here... it actually passes WP:NFILM to me, only a cleanup of WP:REFBOMBs is needed and it isn't a reason to decline based on notability grounds. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanderwaalforces, you could have seen the history, and my later suggestion, which @Urmeesalma has incorporated into the draft. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urmeesalma Just by the way, do you have any connection with Alizdirector or vice versa? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen he also doing same article. He or she might be someone from film industry. But i do not know, should i ask him/her about it?? Alizdirector (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through this topics??here?? Alizdirector (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alizdirector If you are not the same person as Urmeesalma, ~~the~~ then there's no need of reaching out to them. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. And well noted. Things is that a true article is important, that i feel only. Alizdirector (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:49:18, 12 July 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Canadianlegalguy

Canadianlegalguy (talk · contribs)
- Draft:R. v. Zameer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wondering what's the issue with this article? It's far more comprehensive than the current article covering the case ("Death of Jeffrey Northrup"), is fully cited, and actually covers the entire trial and its final verdict. If "Death of Jeffrey Northrup" can exist with its incomplete coverage, surely this article (which is an important case in Toronto and Canadian criminal law) is worthy on Wikipedia?

Canadianlegalguy (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadianlegalguy Hi there. Because U resembles V and there's a Wikipedia article for V doesn't mean U can automatically qualify for an article if it doesn't meet any notability guidelines. Whether Death of Jeffrey Northrup is incomplete in coverage or not, and is related to your draft in a way and is already on mainspace, doesn't make your draft presumptively qualified for a standalone article. Specifically and firstly, I am more concerned about your sourcing as verifiability is very important, secondly you need to write based on the neutral point of view policy. I hope this helps you and give you more context on why your draft was declined. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I have a few questions:

1) The current article features 18 sources, and each individual section is sourced. The only organizations that covered the inner workings of the trial are the CBC and the Canadian Press; I can't get any other sources. The Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, and Globe and Mail (the major Canadian newspapers) all simply reference the Canadian Press' reports. Additionally, other sources were used in other portions of the article (CP24, Brampton Guardian, etc.) when possible.

2) The article was written by feeding all articles covering the case into Claude.ai, with the prompt "Write a neutral article about the Umar Zameer case that can be uploaded to Wikipedia". I made some slight edits for formatting purposes, but the article was intended to be written from a neutral standpoint.

3) Regarding the notability: this was a major legal case covered in Canadian newspapers for over 3 years. The Toronto Police department, the Canadian Criminal Law association, and several Ontario politicians of note (Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Toronto major John Tory) were involved.

Any additional feedback would be greatly appreciated, especially regarding notability and sources. Canadianlegalguy (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ehengbuda

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ehengbuda you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yellow (Brymo album)/GA1

hi! i saw you submitted Talk:Yellow (Brymo album)/GA1 for the DCWC. unfortunately, we're going to have to decline it since it doesn't thoroughly address the criteria, particularly regarding the sourcing. GAN reviews should include a spot-check and consideration of the reliability of each source - some of the sources used on the article, such as BellaNaija, are considered unreliable. if you'd like guidance on doing source reviews, you can post at WT:GAN for a third opinion or sign up at WP:Good article mentorship. thanks for your participation! :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777 Hi there, thanks for your message. I don't need guidance in doing source reviews, I am confident in my skills, and it is evident in the other areas that I work in, like AfDs. But it's okay if you decline it for DCWC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate the swift reply. personally, i would suggest reverting the close of the review and reconsidering the GA pass on sourcing grounds. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777 Yeah, I was going to do that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July music

Thank you for "what a day" on my talk, - much appreciated! I remember today Bach's 1724 cantata for this Sunday which is unusual in many respects. A woman's article needs attention for RD, Marina Kondratyeva. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt You did quite a great job with the fixes on that article, bravo you! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]