User talk:Ksenjamajanov

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the new article on the 2002 Diaz pipeline incident; interesting to see how long these events have an impact. Klbrain (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Whistlegraph (June 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

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

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Whistlegraph and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ksenjamajanov! Having an article draft 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! Theroadislong (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Whistlegraph has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Whistlegraph. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Whistlegraph (June 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Relativity were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

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

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Whistlegraph and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

‍Relativity ⚡️ 10:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Whistlegraph (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 music-related topics). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It doesn't seem very likely that the group is notable at this point. The only source that might count towards notability is the Dirtyverse one (source 1 in the current version of the draft), and I'm not sure about that one either. Please read the text in the box above this one, and follow the links to understand what kind of sources are necessary.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Whistlegraph and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove draft templates

Hi Ksenjamajanov, previously you have removed some templates from Draft:Whistlegraph (for instance here). Please do not do that. The comment "Do not remove this line!" doesn't refer only to that comment, but to the entire line that starts with {{AFC submission or {{AFC comment. If the draft should be accepted by a reviewer, these templates will be removed automatically, but until then they need to stay. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello, Ksenjamajanov. You have new messages at Relativity's talk page.
Message added 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rel8ivity — Alternate account of Relativity (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whistlegraph

I've been watching the draft and it keeps drifting towards worse rather than better. If you want to get the draft accepted, it may be time to go the "less is more" route since your ideas about how to make the draft "better" are quite clearly at odds with what reviewers are asking to see by way of improvement.

I'm also in doubt about the ability of your references to establish notability, but if they can, then you need to eliminate everything else that can't.

Do not try to use their website, or social media posts (including Soundcloud, Spotify, or YouTube) as references. I doubt that Rhizome can be used, particularly not for the artist bios, since those do not represent independent reporting about them, and Rhizome itself, while it has a Wikipedia article, is more of an art promoter than a news organization.

I'm afraid that doesn't leave very much out of which you can build a draft, but if there is to be an accepted draft somewhere in what you've presented it will be based on this residue. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! i greatly appreciate your feedback. I have since removed unreliable sourced (EG their own website, social media references) and i'm working on finding other reliable sources. thank you! Ksenjamajanov (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Whistlegraph (June 22)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Ratnahastin was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Ratnahastin (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stabilo Point 88 (June 24)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

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

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stabilo Point 88 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Ratnahastin (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, I'm Pahunkat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Musical.ly have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Pahunkat (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]