User talk:CSMention269

Samuel Kratzok

@CSMention269If you get a minute, please review my latest submission for Samuel Kratzok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samuel_Kratzok Silverdrake2008 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Silverdrake2008, it's useless to ask me, as I see you didn't made the necessary changes the reviewers said. For more info you can get take a look on User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of attorneys for more clarity. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@CSMention269I have implemented changes suggested by reviewers, please review to see if it is sufficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samuel_Kratzok Silverdrake2008 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it up-to another reviewer to see the necessary changes. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm a beginner and I can't understand everything correctly.

what exactly should I fix so that the article is published correctly,

I can remove some elements if this helps Gyzouka (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing you need to do is done, and I see you changed with alternate sources. However due to his historical references, I might not be able to distinguish whether it is appropriate to qualify for publishing. An American editor might be helpful. Try to contact them for more information on additional citations/other issues. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Not for @Gyzouka: on the above message. I thought that @Silverdrake2008: asked for it. Responding to the former user's talk page.

--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft M&G

Hello, yesterday I went on the chat for getting help to publish this draft and I’ve understood that the sources can’t only be linked to the organization’s website. I have changed the sources to some news so that they are secondary and indipendent from the subject. Because it still isn’t good can you tell me how the sources has to be? Because more indipendent than this I don’t know how much I can find ErGregghe (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me tell you simple words for your understanding @ErGregghe. Here we need three things in sources while keeping in mind. No. 1 is reliable, which means you need to get the sources verified/trusted (like reputed news or verified organisations). Don't go for those sources where possible user-generated inputs are there like blogs. Next, out of these sources which are reliable, are they independent or not is more important (no. 2). It matters for neutral point of view. And third thing is significant coverage, meaning a detail info about the subject.

In this case, the subject is volleyball school and you need to cover these three things in putting references. Find those sources where the subject is notable enough. News are prominent for this case. Those editors who have good understanding on this method makes their article enough for publishing into mainspace and I hope you will. And remember don't go to those topics where the specific subject mentioned (school) is detailed too less to considered for unless major events are covered. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Request on 12:45:00, 23 December 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Pr.nutrition

• Pr.nutrition (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Vladimir Dadali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me more specifically what i need to change in my article? I have been trying to get it approved for 6 months already. I have already deleted all the content that didnt have references.Which sentences should I change?

Pr.nutrition (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(Refixed the message in correct place.)--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)}

@Pr.nutrition: Read WP:CITE and WP:REFBEGIN and fix the citations issue. Next verify those sources which are reliable sources, with significant coverage and neutral of views. Reputed news organization or famous books published with WP:NBOOK might qualify WP:GNG for the article. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And kindly look on the other reviewers' comments, trying to explain on corrections. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Your comment on WePlanet Draft

this Comment about too many of these references being from the Guardian I find really difficult to understand: would you seem to this imply that The Guardian would not really be an independent and valid secondary source, or that WePlanet would have paid for these articles??

And there are  references from the Wall Steet Journal, The Observer, The conversation, The star, all entirely valid as secondary sources

I have been trying to get this article published since more than 6 months, and I was hoping it could at last be evaluated in a fair way, not by moving the goalposts each time I make additional changes . This is really discouraging : I never faced such difficulties in previous articles I wrote for wikipedia , and many, if not most existing articles would probably be rejected if the requirements applied to this article by the reviewers were applied to them Steyncham (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your frustration on this, but read the comment carefully in the draft: "...I recommend you find those same sources with different news agencies or alternate sources; replace them with unqualified WP:GNG Guardian citations while keeping a few that qualify here".

My statement is solely based on the significant coverage, which you need to find out and keep that in your draft. For routine events, find similar sources other than Guardian. Other sources have no objection. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)