Jump to content

User talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2022/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Request for help

Thank you for reviewing and approving my draft article for the film Tyger Tyger. I welcome your suggestions on further cleanup of the citations as you mentioned. Please let me know your perspective on how they could be improved. Bodega2019 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bodega2019: some suggestions:
  • Ideally, you would cite facts inline, so that it is clear which information comes from which source. This isn't strictly required, but does make it a lot easier for anyone wanting to follow up on some information. It looks like someone else came along and left some citation needed tags - that would be the first place to start.
  • You have a long list of sources at the bottom - if all of them are used in the article, then great, but if not you don't need to maintain a list of redundant citations for the same thing. You can remove all but the best sources for any piece of information. If you want to keep them for any future editor's reference, you can leave a note on the talk page.
  • Sources should be cited in a standard format throughout - so either everything should use the {{cite}} template, or everything should be cited as [example.com Title]. I strongly prefer the template; it makes it easier to add information like author name, date of publication, etc, which makes it easier to find the source if the link breaks.
All of these are nice-to-haves on an article like this; you don't need to worry that you did anything wrong with your initial submission. Rusalkii (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for reviewing the article on photo journalist Durborough. You advice to change the inline references to the weblog. Could you give me some idea on how to approach this and give proper references? The blog has the latest research news, and apart from that source no other sources are available. Thank you for your advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron van Dopperen (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ron van Dopperen: What are the sources of your blog? If you got the information from old newspaper articles, cite those directly (the source doesn't have to be available online, though it's great if it is and you can link to it). If it's the credits of an old movie, cite the movie. If all the information is in one of the books your list as references, cite that by page number (though be careful making the article rely too much on one source, especially one you wrote). If this is entirely original research unpublished elsewhere that can't be reasonably sourced to any secondary source, then Wikipedia might not be the best place for it until there are better sources (see WP:OR). Rusalkii (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: Thank you. Apart from the weblog references are somewhat scarce but I managed to find some other sources for this information that I have edited into this lemma. Hope this meets your expectations.
Accepted, thank you! It's a great article. Rusalkii (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My wiki submission : Ariel Lowe Varges

@Rusalkii: Thank you for accepting the article on Durborough! As requested, I have also changed the references in the lemma on Ariel Varges to primary film history literature and deleted source references to the weblog. As with the article on Durborough, sources are scarce because most of what we have found on these World War I photographers comes out of our own research and publications. I hope these changes meet the Wikipedia standards for publication.

My wiki submission : Colton woodard

I made a page for myself because I want to highlight my accomplishments in the karate niche. Do you have recommendations for someone who can review my Information and create a nonbiased profile? I am willing to compensate for their time as a consultant / researcher. This would allow them to write honestly with only facts and no motives. Thank you 2601:4C3:4002:BF80:1027:4F8:EFB5:8A03 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia discourages paid editing, since it creates similar biases to the subject writing about themselves. You might want to take a look at WP:COIE. But the main concern with the article at the moment isn't bias, it's whether you're notable enough by Wikipedia's standards to have an article written about you. Take a look at WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, and try to find some sources that show notability by that definition. If you can find, for example, 2-3 newspaper articles primarily about you, then you're probably notable in third-party sources, and you should add those as citations to the article before you resubmit. If not, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for a biography article yet.
Also, a suggestion: generally it's easier if you make edits logged in, especially to talk pages, so that we can see your username and not a long string of numbers. Rusalkii (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for lending a hand at AfC! S0091 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! It's been fun. Rusalkii (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Chinese to English

Hello, Thank you for your review, my submission has been changed from Chinese to English, may I have your asisstance to review again please. thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%E8%B2%BB%E5%BF%97%E6%81%A9

Mingming012, thank you for translating! I've moved the page to the English title. Resubmit your draft via the normal AfC process, and someone will review it as soon as possible. I would suggest finding some sources that aren't just about his donation, since we usually prefer that subjects of biographies be talked about for more than just one thing. Rusalkii (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I already made resubmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingming012 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have resubmitted the draft, please advise when the draft couble be reviewed. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingming012 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We currently have a two month backlog at AfC, so it depends on how quickly someone gets to it. Rusalkii (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the fast acceptance of my recent literary themed articles for creation. I appreciate that. CT55555 (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the great articles! I've learned about some interesting people and books. Have you considered nominating your favorite for a WP:DYK? Rusalkii (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
No, I had not considered that. I'm still relatively new, although as I think you've noticed, I'm trying to add content about a range of people, books, organizations and issues that I think should be on Wikipedia. Probably the article I've written than is my favorite so far is this one, what a life this guy lived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_George_Powe CT55555 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no rule against new people nominating DYKs. You've got some good articles, no reason not to unless you just don't want to deal with the whole process. I don't think it's particularly complicated, though I haven't ever tried it. Rusalkii (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this suggestion. I submitted three in the past few days as a result of this suggestion and you've really boosted my confidence and enthusiasm for my new wikipedia editing hobby. Sadly, some are more than seven days old, so I missed the chance, but for the new ones, this is perfect. CT55555 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My submission

Hi there Rusalkii. Thanks a lot for reviewing my Draft:Australian Journal of Labour Law. I was wandering what you would like to see so that the article can be published. I did think carefully about whether to submit, and only did so because the Australian Law Journal has been published as a notable source. (Not using 'other stuff exists' argument here, just curious because they are similar journals). The Australian Journal of Labour Law is the eminent reference for Labour Law in Australia. It still does not meet notability guidelines? As an Australian labour lawyer myself (note, no WP:COI here, I am not connected to the journal) I know how reliable and scholarly this journal is. It is produced by LexisNexis, the publisher of many law journals and textbooks in Australia. Cheers Such-change47 (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Such-change47, the journal may or may not meet notability guidelines, I just didn't see any evidence of that in the draft itself. Articles for Creation is usually pretty swamped, so we ask that the sources that show notability be included in the draft itself so that we don't need to search for them ourselves. I don't know much about legal journals, so if you think the journal meets Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) criteria, feel free to resubmit and leave a comment about why you think so up top so that the next reviewer can see it. Rusalkii (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thanks so very much! Such-change47 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Such-change47, I noticed that the draft got declined again. It looks like you added the comment in the short description, which most editors can't even see (it shows up by default only on mobile). A good place to put it would be up top next to the reviewer's comments, with the AfC comment template {{AFC comment|1=}}. Also, "only one of this list not be redlinked" is not the kind of argument reviewers are looks for. It hints at notability, but doesn't actually demonstrate it. The quickest way to get accepted is to look at WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALCRIT, decide which you think it meets, and provide independent sources to demonstrate that. Rusalkii (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rusalkii:, thank you very much. I took another look at the guidelines, and have made some edits, and resubmitted for a final time. I now have many more independent sources than almost every other Australian law journal already published in the list. A journal is not 'notable' in the usual way that something on Wikipedia is I think. Rarely will anyone outside the legal community publicly discuss or cite it, it would not normally be mentioned in the press or talked about. Rather, I think one can judge an academic journal's nobility by its publisher (in this case being LexisNexis, the absolute world leading publisher of legal textbooks and journals) and its contributors (One of its past editors has been made member of the Order of Australia for her contributions to this article amongst other things). Anyway, I have tried my best, I actually have a long list of potential future articles on much more controversial or noble matters, I ironically thought I would start somewhere 'easy' with a law journal. If it does not pass again, I will move on, I do not want to irritate reviewers by submitting something with no chance of success. Cheers, and seriously, thanks for the pointers and following up, it is much appreciated. Such-change47 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
AfC is not always consistent with existing articles, usually in the direction of being more strict. Sometimes this is a good thing (standards have risen, and there are some articles people just made directly that no one's bothered to take a critical eye to since), sometimes it's an inherent limitation of having non-expert volunteer reviewers, and sometimes it's that we're all so used to Best Thing Since Sliced Bread Inc by SusanFromPR that we get cynical about the good stuff too. If it doesn't pass and the reviewer doesn't seem to know more about Australian legal journals than me (i.e. nothing), I'll see if I can get some better eyes on it. Rusalkii (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Owen Simonin

Hello, Rusalkii,

I was going to move this article to Draft space until I saw that you accepted it as an AFC reviewer. Clearly, you see more in this page than I do. I might end up PRODding it or sending it to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The newspaper coverage seems adequate to me, and it's a bit promotional but not unsalveagably so. I have no objections to it being AfD'ed if you think I'm wrong. Rusalkii (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemant Shesh

Hello, Rusalkii, I am grateful to you for your kind help. Kindly keep correcting my mistakes that are too many..I am writing only Shivanand Goswami at the moment....

Request on 14:31:35, 21 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Papoprivate


Hi Rusalkii. Nice to meet you. I was making an Artist Page yesterday for Andrea Volpato (Italian musician, producer and audio engineer) and worked several hours to make it work. The page was refused and I think it is not fair. You wrote that the references, articles, links are not talking about Andrea Volpato and I think this is not accurate. If you open the links/article/references almost all of them are mentioning Andrea Volpato since he is one of the main musicians/songwriters of all those music projects but also the audio engineer and producer. Anyway I add even more references where Andrea is mentioned and I add also articles/profiles/interview/references that are also just about Andrea as a main subject. Hope now you can approve it. Thanks a lot for your time and help.

Papoprivate (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of them did mention Volpato, but only briefly. For notability, we usually for three sources with significant coverage of the subject. There's no hard rule for what "significant" means, but I'll usually look for at least a paragraph or two primarily about the subject. I usually don't re-review articles, but hopefully someone else will get to it soon. Rusalkii (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on my submitted draft Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Steinberg_(journalist_and_photographer)

Thanks for your comment about using Wikipedia and IMDB pages as resources. I have revised my submitted draft page substituting a more direct source for the Wikipedia page I cited. I don't believe I have cited any IMDB references. Please advise if there is anything more I need to do while waiting for review and, jopefully, approval of my page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eronat2 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Eronat2, thanks for fixing the sources! The IMDb reference is #22, cited as "International Movie Data Base", for Divas of San Francisco. Rusalkii (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I've deleted that citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eronat2 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Akribis Systems

Draft:Akribis Systems Hey, thanks for reviewing the draft. I do not have any other articles. These are the only articles which are credible enough, published about Akribis. What should I do ? All these magazines/news agencies are completely independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjchin (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Sjchin, Mitsubishi Electric is a press release by a company with a stake in Akribis, so definitely not independent. Singapore Business has "co-written/partner" as the byline, which usually indicate paid promotional pieces. Businees Times looks okay. If these are the only sources about the company, the unfortunately it probably shouldn't have an article at this time, since we usually looks for at least three independent sources. Rusalkii (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
How about this https://www.straitstimes.com/business/carving-out-a-foothold-abroad-with-every-nanometre and https://www.arcweb.com/blog/mitsubishi-electric-invests-akribis-systems-singapore ?
Interviews are generally not considered independent, and blogs are usually not reliable sources, but I haven't investigated that one carefully so that might be okay. (It's a kind of complicated system, I suggest taking a look at WP:GNG if you haven't already, and reading some of the relevant pages linked from there.) Also, you might want to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~, that lets people know who said what more easily. Rusalkii (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

One last link, this is a docuseries by Channel News Asia on Akribis Systems, the part starts around 28:00. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/becoming-global-hub/connecting-world-2277481 is this fine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjchin (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I provide the link to the linkedin post of Singapore Business Review Awards ? Where it is mentioned that Akribis Systems won an award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjchin (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Channel News Asia is probably good, Linkedin is user-generated and so doesn't work for notability. (Note that all of these judgement are about whether they count towards notability, not whether you can use them as a source to cite some fact. Honestly, though, looking at this even if you pick the best three here it'll be borderline, it just looks like this company doesn't have a high enough profile. Rusalkii (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I have edited everything I could. Could you please check and review the article ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjchin (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears you've been blocked, but in case you're reading this - I do not generally re-review an article, and it looks like someone else has gotten to it already. Rusalkii (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Abuse of tax law in United States

Hi, thanks for your comment! The draft page abuse of tax law in the United States is different for Tax avoidance and tax noncompliance because it analyzes more carefully and in the detail the phenomenon of abuse of law, in particular the tax one, from which originates tax avoidance and tax evasion. I've mentioned non only the Congress legislation and case law doctrines but also a peculiar case -not mentioned in the page tax avoidance and tax noncompliance- of abuse of tax law, such as partnership entity. I hope to have made myself -and therefore my work- clearer. --Jessycac2898 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me like it might still be better merged into one of those articles, but I don't much about tax law and leave the question to other reviewers. Rusalkii (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Murder of Louise Ellis

Hello, how can I change the tone from a newspaper article to an encyclopedia? Is there any other advice you'd recommend? Please advise if there is anything more I need to do while waiting for review and, hopefully, approval of my page.

Ouiouifromage, this is one of those cases that're hard to give concrete advice on because it's mostly I know it when I see it. One of the concerns I have is the level of detail - there's a lot of narrating an event beat-for-beat, when it would be better summarized. Other miscellaneous advice:
  • Some problematic phrases include "All of a sudden", "but it was a lie", "In his rage" "The last straw", "How the case was cracked", etc.
  • Longer section should be broken up into paragraphs
  • Some information is repeated. For instance, the "murder of Louise Ellis" repeats a lot of previous sections
Also, try to sign your talk page messages (with ~~~~) so that it's clear who is saying what. Rusalkii (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Teen Ka Pura

Hello, why you declined my article ? Gurjar Shivam Singh (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gurjar Shivam Singh, I've moved your reply to a new section so it doesn't look like it's part of a separate conversation. I declined the article because it has no sources, which means there's no way for me or anyone else to verify that anything in the article is actually true. Rusalkii (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 December

My first article is in draft. please verify this article and approved. Draft:Milan_Pandey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambabuyadavnepal (talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing looks much better, but I don't generally re-review drafts. Someone else will get to it, though it might be a while since the backlog at AfC is pretty long at the moment. Rusalkii (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Lumpsucker

Am I using this talk page system correctly? I could not find information on the fish from sources other than Fishbase, since they were described in books which I cannot access the text of and do not own. I could try and cite the books, but without actually knowing what each book says about the species it wouldn't be much help. I did not make Fishbase, and the site has its own citations within, but those again refer to books which I do not have. If anyone has access to the books mentioned on each Fishbase entry they should add to the corresponding Wikipedia article with whatever information is available about the fish, but for now I must say there are not any other sources that I have access to for these topics. Lumpsucker (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lumpsucker: In general, it's better to continue a conversation wherever it was started (in this case on your talk page) so that it can all be in one place, but that's not a big deal.
As for the source - I've looked at it again and it seems to have an editorial team and some large but fixed pool of "collaborators", so I think I was too hasty in saying it wasn't a good source. It might still be better to find more sources if you can, but don't worry if you can't. WP:LIBRARY might be a good resource, if the problem is access to books or journals, I don't know how they are on fishes. Rusalkii (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on 22:03:37, 27 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dialectologist


Thank you for your time and feedback! This article includes citations from the United States Curling Association and Grand National Curling Club, which are both separate entities from the RCCC; if the RCCC's status as a member of these organizations constitutes a legal relationship which disqualifies them from being independent sources (per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources), I can add in references to the RCCC from other curling clubs if necessary.

Most of the news articles cited in this article are from local outlets, as is the case for most American curling clubs currently included on Wikipedia. Let me know if there are any other issues which need to be resolved before this article can be considered for approval! Dialectologist (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dialectologist: Whether a parent organization's coverage counts as independent varies, but if there are references from other, unrelated clubs that would be better. Non-local coverage would likewise be better, if it exists, though local is acceptable if it doesn't. Right now my general impression for that draft is that it's borderline for notability, which is why I asked if there was any additional non-local coverage. If there isn't anything less local, you can try to add coverage from unrelated clubs, resubmit, and see what another reviewer thinks. Sorry for not replying sooner! Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: Thanks for the update, and no worries on the delay! I've had this article turned down a couple of times already, and each time I've been given a different reason which I worked to fix--which has been frustrating, as you can probably imagine, but I think you're right that they've all been circling around that central issue of notability, so that's very helpful to have validated. I'll work on beefing this article up with respect to the overall GNG; thanks again! Dialectologist (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Hey Rusalkii, I am new to wikipedia so I didn't know how to contact you apart from leave this note on your talk page. You reviewed my article and said that it need to be more neutral. I made some changes but still not sure if it's fully correct. Could you review it and mark which parts need changing? I would highly appreciate it, thank you. Blocked as a sock Rusalkii (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

comment

Hi Rusalkii, I received your note on my draft page about public domain on pictures. I will go to the Teahouse for advice as you suggested. Vigartjam (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

AFC reviews

Hello, Rusalkii.

I've noticed recently that several articles that you approved through the AFC process have ended up being challenged once they were moved in main space: Harjot Kamal Singh was immediately deleted, Mansi Surve and Insects in Japanese culture were returned to Draft space and Praveen Khandelwal was nominated for deletion in an AFD discussion with the result being a "soft delete".

You might look into these challenges and see what problems editors found with articles that you approved and judged to be main space material. I'm not posting this notice to criticize your efforts but I'm hoping it might help you become a better reviewer of draft articles. You might have a blind spot that you can improve upon. Also, as much as draft creators want to get their efforts into the main space of the project, it can be frustrating to them to get an AFC approval and then find the action reverted by a different editor or admin.

I hope you are having a pleasant holiday season and hope you have a happy New Years! Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you letting me know. It's often hard to see when things are being draftied or deleted; I have a script that watchlists AfDs for accepted articles but that only catches the ones that do go through AfD. I know that Insects in Japanese culture because the creator didn't feel ready, not because of any quality issues with the draft itself. I got pinged about Mansi Survre and Praveen Khandelwal and am concluding that I am somewhat more permissive of possibly slanted content that isn't blatantly promotional, and will try to be somewhat stricter about that. I don't remember what exactly was in Harjot Kamal Singh and so can't make any conclusions off that.
And Happy New Year! Rusalkii (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your help and for letting me know about the username change. :) Chalkofshame (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hamed Sadeghi

Thanks Rusalkii for reviewing my draft page Hamed Sadeghi. I have received your note and added more references as you suggested. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanliou (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, good luck! I don't usually re-review articles, but someone else should hopefully get to it soon, though it may be some time. Rusalkii (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft: James Wakefield Burke

Hi Rusalkii, did I get it right, that you don't re-review drafts? that's a pity, since i added a lot of valid sources etc. so now, the article draft should be ready for review. best 2003:E9:EF20:2B81:7806:4922:69FA:2A4A (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That's right, I usually avoid it so we can get more eyes on an article. This version looks much better! Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

thanks for approving my article :) Castlepalace (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for writing it! Rusalkii (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Brief mentions

I was wondering what you meant on my article, Trevor Tordjman when you talked about breif mentions. I would love to edit this so it is able to become an article and would really apreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ337 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@CJ337: I've moved your comment down to bottom of my talk page, so that everything's in chronological order.
"Brief mentions" means that the source you cited only talks about Tordjman a little bit. For example, here there is only one sentence about him. When reviewing whether or not a subject should have an article, we look for notability: whether or not other independent sources are talking about them. Independent sources that only have a short aside about the subject usually don't count towards the kind of coverage we're looking for. For an actor like Tordjman, something you could look for is reviews of shows he's been in which talk about his acting in particular for at least a paragraph or two, or profiles of him in newspapers. Rusalkii (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sooooo much for the help. I'll edit and come back to submissions later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ337 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for your comment on my recent submission. In one year of editing Wikipedia, your feedback has been the most detailed and helpful to improve. Esamiarum (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help! Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. Rusalkii (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft Louis Riel (historiography) article

Draft Louis Riel (historiagraphy) article is intended as child article to Louiss Riel per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_Riel#Stanley's_4_critical_perspectives_of_Riel_as_cited_in_Betts

The "or not" does not support ballooning the section in this article; as I indicated above, it would support creation of a more detailed child article. Cblambert (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC) J

Louis Riel has been an FA since 2007 and reached a mb size of over 100 mb about a year ago, which include an expanded Historiography section. Louis Riel has been pruned heavily including in terms of down-sizing Historiography section as you now see. Separate child article would help complement summary Louis Riel article because of controversial nature of the issues. Cblambert (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether there should be a historiography article, just that the article as submitted makes no sense to publish. Spent some time expanding it in draft space and adding context, and then try again. Rusalkii (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 18:17:14, 8 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Nrevra



Nrevra (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


Dear Sir, the reason of my message is to ask you for assistance about the page i submitted here. I had to admit it that i don't have much experience in publishing article here because i am new here. Can you please tell me what made my submission not acceptable so that i can change it? Thank you very much for your feedback.

Nrevra Nrevra (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nrevra: Wikipedia has the concept of notability, which determines whether its appropriate to have an article about that subject. To establish notability, we want to see unrelated people talking about the subject. For a director like Veldstra, an example of that would be a couple newspaper articles about him and his films. Your sources are IMDb, which is user-generated and so neither reliable nor helpful for establishing notability, and his personal website, which isn't independent. Rusalkii (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Joan Folkes

Hi Rusalkii,

This is in response to the following message on January 6, 2022: "I tried searching for more sources but couldn't find any third-party ones other than inclusion in a list of female Noble nominees or a one-sentence description of her work."

Joan Folkes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joan_Folkes) has a wide range of publications, which have heavily influenced cell-free biology and molecular biology in general. The fact that she is not cited elsewhere is unfortunately a product of her times, where her male co-author Ernest Gale ended up garnering all the credit by default. These publications should be sufficient proof for that.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.2 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My comment wasn't meant to say that she shouldn't have an article, just to provide whichever reviewer did make the accept/decline decision. Usually we look for at independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, but in this case she might be notable under the notability guidlines for academics. I don't feel comfortable making that call, so I'm going to let some other reviewer decide. Rusalkii (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
hey there

how are you? hope you're doing great i am a newcomer and didn't knew what was to be done or how to contribute thank you for helping me out and explaining why my content was declined i'll try my best to be more productive in future thanking you yashashvi Yashashviwrites (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! Let me know if you have any more questions. Rusalkii (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft Cleaned Up

Hello Rusalkii,

Trust your day is going well? I saw your comment on my talk page and I appreciate your time to go through it, which is well appreciated but I am unclear about what exactly you mean by the comment, please can I get more clarification? I will also appreciate if you can go through the article and kindly review it too.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Cheers!--Karissa 247 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karissa 247: I'm not sure what comment you mean, I haven't said anything on your talk page. If you mean the edit I made to Draft:Makayla Malaka, that was just fixing some minor formatting errors. The draft isn't currently submitted, so it isn't in the queue to be reviewed. Rusalkii (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know, I will submit the draft as soon as possible.

Thanks once again. Karissa 247 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Rusalkii, please I really need your assistance, the draft Makayla Malaka was submitted for review days ago, I am surprised it was not set for review, please how do I make a submission for review. Karissa 247 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Karissa 247: I've added an AfC template to the top of the article, there should be a big button on it you can press to submit it whenever you're ready. I've made some edits to it; my advice would be to remove all of the text that sounds like it's praising Makayla o her music ("sonorous voice", and so on) before submitting. Rusalkii (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Rusalkii, I cannot thank you enough for all your assistance, I will forever be grateful. Thank you.--Karissa 247 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvements in article

I have made some improvements in Draft: Agnibaan please check them and let me know if some more sources are needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshdeep2021 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Harshdeep2021: I suggest addressing the draftifying editor's comments first. They said "dumping 8 refs after the introduction is not actual referencing" - this means that, instead of having the references in a more-or-less arbitrary places, you should put them next to the parts of the article the references support. Rusalkii (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello I have removed the references. Harshdeep2021 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Now there are only two references after the introductions Harshdeep2021 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Harshdeep2021, that's a lot better. You have three okay sources, so in my opinion the draft is borderline right now. If there are more independent sources with significant coverage of the rocket, it would be good to add them. If not, you can submit as is and see if another reviewer will accept it. Rusalkii (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help Harshdeep2021 (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Rusalkii, The reason that 1976 LAB Boeing 707 crash does not have a flight number is because I have not found a reference for it. KingAviationKid (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it was just a suggestion. Rusalkii (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you help a draft

Hey can you check this draft and help it with fixing grammatical mistakes and say how to improve the draft? २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@२ तकर पेप्सी: The first step in improving this draft is to demonstrate notability. You have one okay source, Zee News. You want at least two more to have a chance at passing the general notability guidelines. Once you have those, then it makes sense to start thinking about the grammar. Rusalkii (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: is the draft improved comparing as you saw last time and any suggestions or comment from you. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

२ तकर पेप्सी, none of the new sources are really significant. They're all brief mentions of the actor. Are there any reviews of films he was in that have at least a paragraph about him? Or a newspaper article talking about his career? Rusalkii (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Rusalkii, One source added where the actor was nominated in 2 section of an award and has won one. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
That's still not significant - he's just an entry in a list of winners. You're looking for at least a paragraph or two entirely about Ayan. Honestly, I don't think he's ready for an article at this time. There will probably be more about him in a couple years when he's further along in his career. Rusalkii (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Rusalkii, ok fine I will improve the draft according to your guidance, maybe we need to wait few more months to collect more news about him. Btw what do you mean by "significant" source, how to identify the source is significant or not. २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A source has significant coverage of the subject if there's substantial content about them in it: a newspaper article entirely about Ayan is probably significant coverage, while inclusion in a list, one or two sentences, or a brief aside in the context of something else probably isn't. Rusalkii (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Take Out Move page

Hi Rusalkii,

Thank you for your comment on the page I created for The Take Out Move. I'm newer to Wikipedia editing, so I want to make sure I'm doing it right and appreciate the help!

You commented "Comment: IMBd is a user-generated source and almost never considered reliable. If it cites its sources, consider using those instead. Rusalkii (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)".

I looked, and there doesn't seem to be a cited source on the IMDb page itself. So should I leave the current cite I have (leading to IMDb) on the The Take Out Move's Wikipedia page? Or should I delete the citation and leave that info on the Wikipedia page un-cited?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenGOut (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You should try to find another source with that information. If you can't find a source other than IMDb, leave it out. Rusalkii (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 00:11:12, 15 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Thames27


Re: gunslinger effect - article rejection

The term is clearly now in use in the scientific literature, not merely in a single instance. 4 papers refer to it directly in pubmed, and somewhat more in google scholar. Hence I think it should not be regarded as a promoted neologism but the accurate term for a scientifically observed phenomenon. (cf "thagomizer"...)

Thames27 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I only saw two in the sources, and reviewed on basis of what I saw. You should either expand the article to use more of the available sources, or make it clear in the text of the article how widely its used. Rusalkii (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ray Strachan Wikipedia Page Creation

hello i have been editing Ray Strachan Wikipedia page for some time now and i just don't understand why he is getting declined he has a huge fan base and he is very notable and i have spoken with plenty of people that are looking for more information about him now i am open with help if you guy see a problem that needs to be fixed please fix it but i don't understand what i'm doing wrong i have meet all the requirements for a creation of a Wikipedia just please look it over again because i spend hours and hours a day researching ways i can improve his Wikipedia page and i feel that i did my best doing it i even talked to one of the administrators about this page and he gave me some tips and improved it. i came across dozens and dozens of actors Wikipedia pages that don't come close to his page and they got approved so can you please help me out and help out the fans of Ray Strachan Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.7.60 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@172.58.7.60: Having a huge fanbase doesn't guarantee notability per Wikipedia's definition. When we use that word, we mean that he either has a lot of reliable sources (like newspapers, movie reviews by major critics, etc) talking about him in depth, or he has several major roles or passes one of the other WP:NACTOR criteria. I and other reviewers aren't seeing how he passes either of those based on that page. Rusalkii (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Robert Rector (Artist) comment

Hi,

Thank you for your comment on the page I submitted. I've gone back in and removed the external links from the body of the article as you suggested. I appreciate your feedback in making this page the best it can be. Have a great day!

Jeff Deskpops (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Playsaurus (January 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii 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. 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.
Rusalkii (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Rusalkii! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rusalkii (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this template was copied to my page. If this is a request for help, please clarify what you're asking about the draft. Rusalkii (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled AEW video game draft

Honestly i only made the draft cuz theres no wiki page about it. Not even user generated wikis (fandom, knowyourmeme, smackdownwiki etc.) and i also agree on your opinion being "too late". the concept of the video game went back to 2019, so yeah respect 100+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fandom or some other wiki might have less strict content rules, if you want to try over there. But, yeah, we usually don't have articles for games until at least basic information like name and release date have been confirmed. Rusalkii (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources from another language

Hi Rusalkii

Since the True IDTV page did not pass for submission, I'd like to ask if sources from a foreign language are acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skitatherim (talk • contribs) 08:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skitatherim: foreign language sources are perfectly fine, although we generally prefer English ones if they are available. 18:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Promed hospital

Hi Mr Rusalkii, Kindly give me an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.219.205.218 (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've moved your message to the bottom of the page so that it's easier to read. I assume you mean an example of an independent source for Draft:Promed hospital. I can't find one for you right now, but a good example might be a newspaper article about the hospital, something like the Ritz Magazine source. Rusalkii (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Dhaulagiri II

Hello, Rusalkii,

You indicated that a page with this title in main space should be deleted but it doesn't look like your review of this draft is complete, it looks like you are still in the process of reviewing it. Admins are reluctant to delete a page in advance of a possible move, the standard is to do the deletion and move in one step. But this draft doesn't look like it is ready to be moved yet so I'm just checking with you. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

As soon as the redirect is deleted I will move it; I've done all the reviewing and decided that I'm going to accept it. Rusalkii (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 19:08:29, 20 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Kcisanders


So, you said the coverage I have used in my draft is "Paid for review". Did you know all of the websites/blogs offer this service? I mean, Forbes is the only one which isn't working this way since its already sponsored by tons of people. You are accepting EDM.com as a "significant coverage" which is $250 for an article (yes, pay for review), but everything else doesn't matter? Also, I have seen tens of published pages with nothing except a few Apple Music and YouTube references while I received a decline with a comment "Apple Music and YouTube are not counted as reliable sources/references". It's all "fair". Have a good one!

Kcisanders (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not know all of the websites which are pay for review, and will sometimes miss some. There being published pages that only have Applye Music and YouTube references is bad, but doesn't mean we should add more. We're all volunteers here, and I can't clean up all of the pages that do exist and either need improvement or deletion, just the ones I happen to notice. Rusalkii (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

DRAFT:Stephie_Theodora

Help me please with my article. I have made the article as short as possible. added links. I also have newspaper articles. Please tell me how can I save the article.

@Ilyadante: It doesn't look to me like the subject is notable. Your sources are IMDb, which as another editor already told you is user-generated and so needs to be replaced by a reliable sources, Medium, which is a personal blog website, several sources by the subject but not about her, a bio on one of her projects (which are usually author-generated and so do not contribute to notability), and an interview (likewise not independent). I don't think you'll be able to get this published, but your best shot is to (1) remove all references to IMDb and replace them with other sources and (2) find at least 2-3 newspaper articles or other independent sources that talk about the subject in depth (at least one paragraph). Rusalkii (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Jerzy Sepioł

Hello, Rusalkii. Thank you for the information. There is no need to worry. I try to be objective. I have a similar nickname to the scientist's name. Kind regards --Sepiolo (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you help me please?

Thank you so much for your help. I have submitted this article for review but I am worried that I would not be getting a response in time. I am trying to use this article as an example of editing Wikipedia for an event that is coming soon. I am hoping to get it posted by January 15th. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLAC (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@WikiLAC: One problem with your article is that, as I said in my comment, it doesn't have a lead which talks about digital rights in the Caribbean in general, rather than just a list of digital rights in different areas of the Caribbean. You can either try to write about what independent sources have said about digital rights in the area in general, or split the article into Digital rights in Jamaica, Digital rights in Cuba, etc. Talking about the WikiProject doesn't work in an article, since it isn't information about the subject.
As the article stands, I'm not comfortable making a call about it personally, so I am not going to accept or decline it. If you would like your article reviewed faster by some other reviewer, I suggest identifying the WP:THREE best sources and leaving them in a comment at the top for the reviewer. Rusalkii (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: Thank you so much for your fast response. Will follow your recommendations and come back to you if necessary!
@Rusalkii: Hi! Hope you're doing well. We have edited the intro section following your advice. Would like to hear if you have any recommendation.

Live in Concert (XTC album)

Hi Rusalkii

My article on XTC's live album was declined because the references "do not show significant coverage" of the album. I understand the importance of references, particularly when one is expressing an opinion or something subjective. However, this is an album, a recording that exists on Spotify and can be purchased. It's not opinion based. If there were more references to use then I would use them. Are you suggesting a page for this album cannot exist on wikipedia based on the fact that not many people have mentioned it (online or elsewhere)? If so, how do you suggest this page to exist in future? Thanks MrDeclanDwightMrDeclanDwight (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

MrDeclanDwight, you may want to look at WP:GNG. In summary, yes, we expect some amount of coverage by outside sources for a Wikipedia article to exist. If you can find a couple reviews of the album by prominent critics (so not i.e. someone's personal blog) that should be sufficient. Rusalkii (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

OK I have included Allmusic's 3-star rating of the album and I have mentioned that it was re-released on a box set, of which has its own wiki page. Disc 4 of the box set is the same concert, as stated by a few sources, two of which I referenced (mtv.com & discogs.com). I have also given more information about the record company (defunct) that released this album (and many other live BBC recordings) and have linked this to an existing wiki page as well as referenced.MrDeclanDwight (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a review when I follow your link - if it's just a rating and not text, it wouldn't count towards notability. Rusalkii (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added text reviews and ratings before I saw your reply. Can you check again please?MrDeclanDwight (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to evaluate these reviewers, so I'm going to leave it to another reviewer, but that's a lot better! Rusalkii (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much MrDeclanDwight (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for review

Hello, wanted to thank you for reviewing and accepting my page. I have submitted it two more and wanted to request you to review those too. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassesgalore123 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Glassesgalore: I don't usually review articles on request, since there's a lot of articles waiting right now and that wouldn't be fair to everyone who didn't think to ask me or other reviewers. Rusalkii (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi. You reviewed my submission here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heath_Adams).

Your feedback was "Not seeing independent sources about them rather than by them".

Could you please provide some tips/more information? The only source by the person is confirming their YouTube award. There are reliable sources, such as Microsoft, O'Reilly, and new stations. I'm new to this, so not sure where I'm going wrong.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verifiedhacker (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Verifiedhacker: you're right, there are a couple sources there that are not by him, I should have been more clear. The issues with your submission is that the sources are either by him (the twitter thread, Cybersecurity Career Master Plan, the Microsoft Security article, the podcast (interviews count as "by" for this purpose, since they're his own words)), by organizations he works for (so likewise not independent, or brief mentions (like the WCNC article or lists of speakers at conferences).
These sources are all perfectly fine to use to verify facts, but they don't count towards notability, where we generally look for a couple independent sources with significant coverage about the subject. Good examples might be newspaper articles with at least a paragraph about his YouTube channel, or a book with a page or two talking about his research. Rusalkii (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please Help!

Hi Rusalkii, thank you for accepting the draft regarding Sarah Azhari song [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_to_Survive. However someone did decide both of the pages (on which the first i have not created since Sarah is a huge personality in Indonesia for decades) needs to be deleted. I do not understand what is the reasoning for it since the sources and topics are really close to Indonesians culture and media backed up by an extensive amount of researches and studies as well as coverage. I hope you could have a check on both articles and give me an opinion about it. Best Amoeba69th (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi AAmoeba69th, you seem to have removed the proposed deletion on Dance to Survive, so there's nothing to do there unless it's nominated for AfD.
As for the discussion about Sarah Azhari, I don't have anything new to say, since I don't read Indonesian and wouldn't be able to find any sources. My advice to you is (1) to stop accusing other editors of not being able to read the content, and instead summarize for them what exactly the source says about her. A direct translation would be best, but even something like "there are three paragraphs that talk about her album Whatever, and one discussing her background as a Whoever" would be more helpful than just providing links and asserting that they are about her. Everything else seems to have been said already - whether fairly or not, other editors are telling you that you're making big claims ("she's popular, she was involved in this big event") and not backing them up with suitable sources. (2) If you want the article kept, I suggest finding three newspaper articles that are available to other editors to check that are substantially about her (multiple paragraphs) and do not rely mostly on quotes from her for their content. In-depth reviews of her music would be best, since those are less likely to be called "gossipy". Link those out and explain, in brief, what they say. These should be your best articles, with the most substantial coverage of her of those you can find. If those are not accepted by the other editors in the discussion, it might be best to back off and go edit somewhere else for a while. Rusalkii (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thank, i apologized everywhere but it it sort of a dilemmatic situation on which my showed arguments are now being ignored .... what should i do if the editors in question are not responding to my sources ? meaning they are not good or they dont want to interpret ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Right now you're throwing lots and lots of comments at them, some with sources some not, and it isn't clear which are important. So people aren't responding because sorting through that is time-consuming and stressful. I'm going to rephrase my advice above: pick your best three sources, link them in one place with a brief description of why each is a good source, ideally with some kind of emphasis to make this comment stand out from the many other comments you are making at that AfD discussion. If those sources don't persuade other editors, then you should step back, take a break, and work on other areas of the project. I've had articles I thought were interesting and useful get deleted despite my arguing to keep them, but I didn't keep arguing once it was clear that the arguments that I had already made weren't persuasive to most editors in the discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Article on ARFID

Hi Rusalkii!

I had just submitted a draft for a bit of the Wikipedia article on ARFID to be improved and you rightly rejected it as I realise now I did not follow the appropriate procedure. My question is, can I just add it to the existing article by editing it and will it get reviewed that way? What is the usual process for adding to an existing article, as this is what I would like to and need to do to complete my university assignment?

All the best, MonkeyEnthusiast (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

MonkeyEnthusiast, you can just go right ahead and add it to the article yourself, no need to wait for formal review or ask anyone's permission. Keep in mind that someone might come along and remove it if they don't think it adds to the article, though. Wikipedia is built around everyone making the changes they think are best, and then other people coming along and changing that if they think it's wrong or could be improved. New article creation is one of the only things where you need someone else to check it for you. Rusalkii (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you! MonkeyEnthusiast (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. That's all I have to say here. :) JohnAbbotIV (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Help in publishing Draft

Please dear sir/mam, may you please review and publish my draft as no one is giving any response from several months and its review is still waiting. I am fully sure that my draft is 100% eligible for publication and it follows all guidelines of our "Wikipedia". Kindly, help me and publish my draft.

Draft link: [1]

Thank you so much in advance TriMain182681 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@TriMain182681, your draft was not submitted, so no one knew you wanted it to be reviewed. I've submitted it for you now. I don't review drafts on request but it's in the queue, so hopefully someone will get to it soon. Rusalkii (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Princess of Xiaohe

Hello! Your submission of Princess of Xiaohe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2022/January&oldid=1074870855"