User talk:Gibmul

Alex Cubis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 15:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ximble. Thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HiGibmul. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as "non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files, non-free content such cannot be used in your user sandbox. You can simply re-add the files after you've moved the relevant content to the article names. Even non-free content use in articles, however, is not automatic and you will need to provide a seperate specific non-free use rationale explaining how the way the file is being used meets all ten non-free content criteria. This can sometimes be hard to do because of the contexual significance required by WP:NFCC#8 is not always justified in each and every case. If you have any further questions about non-free use, feel free to ask them here, at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFC.

Finally, you should be careful about copying large chucks or entire articles into your sandbox for the reasons explained in WP:CWW. Even though each edit we make to Wikipedia is released under a WP:CC BY-SA, proper attribution needs to be given to the person or persons who originally added the content. Normally, this attribution can be found in the page history of the article, but when articles or large chucks of articles are moved to other places, this record is lost and the content appears to have been the sole creation of the editor who moved the content. Much of the time this is something which can be fixed by making a dummy edit or a talk page post saying where the content originated from, but it can be treated as a copyright violation in some cases if proper attribution is not given. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've added Template:connected contributor (paid) to the talk pages of various sanbox drafts you currently are working on. Are you being paid by someone to create articles about these topics? If you are, then please carefully read through WP:PAID because paid editors are required to do certain things by Wikipedia's TOS. Even if you're not being paid, but are still connected to the people or things you're writing about in some way, then you might be considered by the Wikipedia community to have a conflict of interest. If that's the case, please a take a look at WP:COI and WP:PSCOI for some general information about the kinds edits considered acceptable for COI editors to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am being paid to update the Yoshiki article but I am ensuring that it is being done in an objective manner. I am a working newspaper journalist and used to this type of thing. Gibmul (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely need to comply with WP:PAID. Also, you should be aware of WP:NOTNEWS because Wikipedia articles are not necessarily written in the same manner as a newspaper article might be. If you are being paid by the subjects of these drafts, then you and they must understand that Wikipedia articles are written about subjects, not for subjects; so, I strongly suggest you look at WP:OWN as well as because neither subjects or articles nor article creators have any final editorial control over article content. Most editors do their best to adhere to relevant policies and guidelines when editing, but editing is collaborative which means that one's preferred version is not always the version determined through WP:CONSENSUS. If you are planning on making major changes (i.e., anything not WP:MINOR) to the Yoshiki (musician), you and are being paid to do so, then you should follow WP:COIADVICE and discuss the changes on the article's talk page to see if there's a consensus for them.

Also, there is something you wrote in this edit sum that you probably should also clarify. You wrote This is purely a sandbox article which is currently being edited jointly, but this is the only account editing the article. Is this account being shared among multiple individuals? If that's the case, then you need to be aware that this is something not allowed per WP:ROLE and WP:NOSHARING. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I misled you about the sandbox article, I was limited by the wording allowed in the comment space. The article is being edited by me only but I am using the sandbox as a proof page for others to ensure the updates are correct and objective.Gibmul (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you these "others" are, and it's also not clear who your employer or employers are. I think you would be better off proposing any major changes you are being paid to make to existing articles on the respective article's talk page per WP:COIREQ instead of directly adding/revising the content yourself. Proposing such revisions on the article talk page will give others watching the article a chance to offer feedback and clean up things if necessary. Anything changes you make to an article, can literally be revised or removed by anyone anywhere in the world as soon as you press the "Save changes" button, so discussing major revisions first is, in general, good colaborative editing practice. Anyway, I have started a discussion about this at WP:COIN#Paid editing by User:Gibmul to see if any others can provide further guidance to you so that you do not find yourself having issues with other editors. COI editing is not expressly prohibited, but it is highly discouraged because it can lead to some serious problems. It's something viewed suspiciously by quite a large part of the community, so it's better to establish some clear ground rules from the beginning so you know what kinds of things the community considers acceptable in your particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay what exactly would you like me to do? Regarding the Yoshiki (musician) article I am editing for the agent of the performer who is definitely not trying to promote but just to bring his article up to date. You may or may not be aware that Yoshiki is a very major musician in Japan and has very wide recognition. Hence he is seeking the services of a professional writer Gibmul (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of Yoshiki and his popularity in Japan, but his agent might not be aware that the Wikipedia article is not written for Yoshiki; it's written about Yoshiki and neither Yoshiki or anyone connected to him as any ownership rights over the article's content. Agents, etc. typically are hired to act in the best interests of their clients, which isn’t always in the best interest’s of Wikipedia. Any changes you are getting paid to make to the article, can be undone by others just as easily if a consensus is not established to make them. That is how Wikipedia works and what makes it quite different from a website controlled by Yoshiki's management team. This doesn't mean Yoshiki and his agent are completely powerless when it comes to all things Wikipedia, and there are options available as explained in WP:BLP#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia. However, other than cases where it's deemed that direct editing by the subject or those connected to the subject is either considered to be minor or essential to remove any clear-cut violations of WP:BLP, it's better for changes to be proposed on the article talk page first for assessment by others to see of there's a consensus to make them.

I think it would be better for this discussion to continue at WP:COIN in the thread I’ve started. Doing so will make it much easier for others to participate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Paid editing by User:Gibmul. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gibmul. I work on conflict of interest and advocacy issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Thanks for disclosing that you edit for pay sometimes, for example that you have been working on the Yoshiki (musician) article for pay.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and prior review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid or expect to be paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first (and just the first), step. With regard to your paid editing work, the WP:PAID policy obligates you do disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation.

Would you please reply here, and write down for each draft and each article, who is paying you (or who you expect to pay you), who the client is, and any other affiation? For example, for the Yoshiki article, it ~could~ be,

• article = Yoshiki (musician), employer = (name of Yoshiki's agent or agency -- whoever is actually paying you), client = Yoshiki, affiliation = hired through Freelancer. (if you are a freelancer hired by Yoshiki's agent)

It could also be:

• article = Yoshiki (musician), employer = DigitalMarketing, Inc, client = Yoshiki, affiliation = none. (if you are an employee of a digital marketing or PR agency that was hired by Yoshiki's agent)

It could be:

• article = Yoshiki (musician), employer = DigitalMarketing, Inc, client = Yoshiki, affiliation = hired though UpWork. (if you are contracting for a digital marketing or PR agency that was hired by Yoshiki's agent)

Would you please provide that list below? Once that is done, we can get the disclosure done correctly and then we talk about the "prior review" step. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for letting me know what exactly I must do, when I tried to insert the client information into the template "{connected contributor (paid)}" it would not allow me. If there is a better template I would welcome it.

The situation is quite simple - I was hired by an individual called David Cirone through Upwork to update both the Yoshiki and the Silent Siren articles. He is very displeased that they are both reverted since he is very keen, as their publicity agent, to keep the articles current but not promotional. Indeed the Japanese public are seeking the updates and he is trying to be fair to them. If there is any further requirement to paid for articles I will be happy to comply.

If you require me to edit the updates further I will be happy to do so.Gibmul (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying! Please don't fuss over formatting yet - I can help with that as we go.

First would you please clarify - are you being paid by David Cirone personally (out of his own bank account) or by his marketing firm, Resonance?

In addition, you are working on a bunch of other things:

• User:Gibmul/sandbox 1 Novica
• User:Gibmul/sandbox 2 >> Draft:Ximble
• User:Gibmul/sandbox 3 >> Draft:Droplr
• User:Gibmul/sandbox 4 >> Alex Cubis
• User:Gibmul/sandbox 5 (blank)
• User:Gibmul/sandbox 6 - Silent Siren
• User:Gibmul/sandbox 7 - Bidsketch
• User:Gibmul/sandbox 8 - Indow

These all look like commercial edits. Please be aware you must disclose if you were paid already, are being paid, or expect to be paid. Would you please disclose regarding the other articles? (employer, client, and affiliation)

I do understand that one of your clients is impatient but I want to get you well oriented. Your long term well being in Wikipedia is more important. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want you can copy this onto your userpage (User:Gibmul) to get the disclosure done for the first two:

Paid editing disclosures

<redacted>

Once you copy this I will delete this - it only needs to be on your user page. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied those two items to my User Page.

Regarding the David Cirone questions - I never heard of Resonance and have no idea what account I was paid from. He just pays Upwork and they pay me as a journalist.

Would you like me to follow suit with the other articles.Gibmul (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted the template above - it only needs to be on your userpage.

About Cirone see here for example: "David Cirone is the founder of Resonance Media, specializing in promotion and management services for Japanese music artists...."

Yes -- please do that for all the articles. Once that is done we can go to the next steps.

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the disclosures to my User page.Gibmul (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! OK time for next steps, will do that in a new section. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... thanks again for disclosing!

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review -- prior review, really. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at your userpage as you have already, and then also at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. And disclose in the edit note, something like "This is a noncontroversial change, paid for by X on behalf of Y". If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please do the "prior review" process.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the prior review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I understand. If I need clarification I'll get back to you. Gibmul (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When will my updates on Yoshiki and Silent Siren be reverted back? Gibmul (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer project. Trying to build a business around paid editing in Wikipedia and being a good citizen is difficult from a business perspective, as you cannot promise clients that you will be able to meet any deadline (so you have to educate clients about that) and you cannot depend on a cashflow.

The best way to get paid edits accepted, in my experience, is:

• use the "request edit" template above
• offer only relatively short bits of content at once -- asking volunteers to review a huge swath of content is daunting
• when you offer content, make sure it is very high quality -- very well sourced, completely supported by the source provided, very neutral, and with the citations well formatted, so that the volunteers don't have to do a bunch of additional work on it. I do understand that your clients will want you to add promotional material but you cannot do that in Wikipedia per WP:PROMO and other policies. Promotional copy with be rejected. The nature of the content you generate and propose is another negotiation you need to have with clients, along with the deadline thing.

That is the best I can offer you. It is really hard to be a white hat paid editor on Wikipedia. I respect that, but that is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

All subjects on Wikipedia must be fundamentally notable to have an article. Our guideline on the notability of software mandates that a piece of software must be "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". Whilst the references you have provided are adequate at verifying claims, they do not demonstrate the media coverage required to pass this guideline. Specific next steps: To demonstrate this, you should cite, or add at the bottom magazine articles, industry news, industry websites etc. that talk about this file sharing and collaboration enhancing SaaS app in depth. This'll probably mean in your case more reviews like the ones you already have. Let me know if you need any help.

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:Droplr 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:Droplr, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Gibmul, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The reference from the Huffington Post is good, but the others are from niche publications with a limited audience and as such don't contribute to notability.

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:Ximble 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:Ximble, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JSFarman (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. Gibmul (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Straight-forward advertising by a paid editor. Sources 1,2, 6 just mention the company in lists, Sources 3,4 are interviews with the founder and Source 5 is a blog. Nothing at all to indicate Notability.

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:Bidsketch 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:Bidsketch, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KJP1 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gibmul. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Alex Cubis, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kb.au (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gibmul,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Alex Cubis should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Cubis .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Kb.au (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Cubis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Cubis (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kb.au (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has notability issues and tone issues. It does not establish corporate notability, and it reads promotionally.

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:Indow 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:Indow, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Bidsketch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not provide in-depth coverage of the company by independent sources. It appears to be based on press releases and the company's own publicity.

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:ParkMyCloud 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:ParkMyCloud, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ParkMyCloud, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:ParkMyCloud and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:ParkMyCloud during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gibmul - I have reviewed this talk page and your edit history and your previous discussion with User:Jytdog. I see that, after being instructed to make the paid editing disclosure, you did make the disclosure on the drafts that you had already created. You don't appear to have made that disclosure on User:Gibmul/sandbox 10, User:Gibmul/sandbox 11, User:Gibmul/sandbox 12, and User:Gibmul/sandbox 13. Wikipedia is primarily a volunteer project, and the requirement that paid editors disclose their involvement is not optional. This reminder applies to all articles that you write for your clients, and it appears that your activity in Wikipedia is exclusively that of a paid editor. Maybe you didn't take the advice of Jytdog sufficiently seriously. Maybe you should. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was an oversight on my part. I put notice of the articles in question on my User Page but forgot to place the notice on the Talk Page of the articles in question. I have now rectified the matter.Gibmul (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was an oversight on my part. I put notice of the articles in question on my User Page but forgot to place the notice on the Talk Page of the articles in question. I have now rectified the matter.Gibmul (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Boris Gorbunov, from its old location at User:Gibmul/sandbox 10. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you.  samee  converse  11:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Neom Organics 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:Neom Organics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Power and Gas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Also provide multiple independent and reliable sources that reported about the company.

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:Achem Pharmaceuticals 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:Achem Pharmaceuticals, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

–Ammarpad (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Gorbunov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HousingAnywhere, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conical screw compressor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ximble, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Vert Rotors 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:Vert Rotors, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. » Shadowowl | talk 17:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Superfood instead.

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:Green Superfoods 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:Green Superfoods, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TMG^talk 17:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delair, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gibmul! You created a thread called Resubmitting an article which has been redirected at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jon Doscher. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The caption on the picture in the infobox is non-neutral and promotional, intended to advertise the award for the film (not for Doscher). Also, see previous deletion discussion.

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:Jon Doscher 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:Jon Doscher, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not establish corporate notability. This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the company.

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:The Unlimited 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:The Unlimited, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jon Doscher. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Gibmul (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac 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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Small chain of retail stores. The awards are WP:MILL and not worthy of a Wikipedia article

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:Neom Organics 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:Neom Organics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Neom Organics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Neom Organics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Neom Organics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac 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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). 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:Treated.com 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:Treated.com, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Patrick McKeown. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See history of previous deletions. Do not resubmit without obtaining copies of the first and second deleted versions of the article at Requests for Undeletion for comparison to demonstrate that this draft is better than the two deleted articles.

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:Patrick McKeown 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:Patrick McKeown, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Although article is carefully constructed not to copy-paste the website's verbiage, it still reads strongly like a brochure for the company. Need more secondary sources that review the product neutrally. Charity partnerships section is a bit overly detailed on the specifics of the program, and is unsourced.

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:Proviz Sports 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:Proviz Sports, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gibmul. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Achem Pharmaceuticals".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. JMHamo (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sebastien Gavillet. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I have done some copy editing but I am not convinced that this person passes WP:GNG the sources are mostly passing mentions, we require more in-depth coverage.

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:Sebastien Gavillet 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:Sebastien Gavillet, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jcc 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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources all mention him in passing e.g. requests for comment, but don't focus on him.

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:Max Zanan 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:Max Zanan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Max Zanan. Thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac 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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:NCORP and WP:MILL

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:Proviz Sports 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:Proviz Sports, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boris Gorbunov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Gorbunov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jon Doscher. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Article was deleted. Request copy of article for comparison before resubmitting.

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:Jon Doscher 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:Jon Doscher, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shad White, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I have approved this article. Please update the "Current statewide political officials of Mississippi" box and other appropriate places with this subject? Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer 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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Sources are either news releases regarding acquisitions, or provide only superficial coverage. See WP:NCORP.

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:SOC Telemed 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:SOC Telemed, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Glints. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

He appears to be only known as a founder of Glints, so unless he becomes known for something else, he's better covered in the Glints article where there's already a section about him.

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:Looi Qin En 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:Looi Qin En, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer 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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.

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:Sue Linda Steinberg 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:Sue Linda Steinberg, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. 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 Curb Safe Charmer was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gibmul. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vert Rotors".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Dolotta (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Milowent 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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I am concerned this subject does not meet our notability standards. I also see that an Italian wikipedia article on this subject has twice been deleted for lack of notability.

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:Andrea Jori 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:Andrea Jori, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CNMall41 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 films). 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:

The references are not from WP:RSes. Also, the entire section on "production" contains six paragraphs that are not referenced.

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:Funny Tweets 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:Funny Tweets, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katrin Gray, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

 The comment the reviewer left was:

HARO-style mentions do not count toward notability.

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:Max Zanan 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:Max Zanan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Newslinger talk 15:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Lacking sufficient citations of in-depth, independent coverage in WP:RS. WP:NCORP failure.

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:SOC Telemed 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:SOC Telemed, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SamHolt6 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gibmul! You created a thread called Article review on Talk Page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Gibmul/sandbox 45. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 organizations and companies). 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:

A typical poor quality paid for puff piece. Passing mentions, press releases and Wkipedia are not suitable sources.

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:Brüel & Kjær Vibro 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:Brüel & Kjær Vibro, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Otr500 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Just advertising and a yellow page listing for an expanding startup. Runs the same theme of "get it listed on Wikipedia to get top search results". Otr500 (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Growth Street 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:Growth Street, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Otr500 (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gibmul. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Unlimited".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Dolotta (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This can be expanded upon in the main article about the Zone.

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:CHERNOBYLwel.come 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:CHERNOBYLwel.come, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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 will be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

please remove all instances of "™" they are not required.

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:Architecture MasterPrize 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:Architecture MasterPrize, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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) 10:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gibmul. I noticed on your userpage that you accept jobs via Upwork; please note that (per WP:PAID, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service, and [1]) you are required to provide a link to any venues on which you advertise your editing services. Please make these link(s) as soon as possible. Thank you.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will do from now on.Gibmul (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to link to your Upwork account. Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. – Joe (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example so that I know how to do it correctly.Gibmul (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A simple link to any page where you advertise your services is what's needed. It's not acceptable to continue creating paid-for pages when you haven't done that. I've blocked your account until you are fully in compliance with WP:PAID. Please ping me or make an unblock request when that's done. – Joe (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every article I submit contains this message on the Talk Page [2] Is this what you mean?Gibmul (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you are advertising your services on upwork (for example), there needs to be a link on your user page to the page on upwork.com where you advertise. Please read WP:PAID, which contains all the information you need; it's your responsibility to understand and comply with the Terms of Use. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with Upwork and found this link [3]. Is that what you mean and if so I am to place it on my Userpage? Gibmul (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to place the Upwork link on my Userpage but you have it blocked. Can you unblock it? Gibmul (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from the upwork profile that you have been evading the block on your previous account, User:Nmwalsh, so no. – Joe (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Raftopoulos, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lopifalko (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture MasterPrize, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Stevey7788 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gibmul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am a Paid Contributor who is trying to be compliant. I wish to contribute constructively and positively to Wikipedia, as I think you will see from my contributions over the past 18 months. I would like to resolve this issue and continue as a compliant Paid Contributor.

Decline reason:

You are believed to be in violation of WP:SOCK but have not addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I do not wish to use sockpuppetry. I just wish to continue as a compliant Paid Contributor. Like I said I just wish to contribute constructively and positively to Wikipedia. Gibmul (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gibmul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not wish to use sockpuppetry, I just request that my original account be unblocked so that I may continue as a compliant Paid Contributor. Like I said I just wish to contribute constructively and positively to Wikipedia. Gibmul (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Then log in to your original account and make an unblock request from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My original account nmwalsh[4] is locked and it keeps returning me to here. I will happily have a discussion with you there but I can't. Gibmul (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to log in to your original account. Note given your extensive violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE here, there's no plausible way you'll be unblocked in the near future, as you've proven you cannot be trusted. Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]