User talk:CanonNi/Archives/AI

The Monument Mythos draft
Please, delete it! Alex Casanas, the Monument Mythos maker is menacing on his YouTube channel, Patreon, Discord and Reddit medias to suicide as he feels really mentally unstable and he can't hold it anymore! And he has tried to take his life other times for his past issue that we can't comment here! It's a Wikipedia article worth the taking of a live?! DeIIvelloper (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what draft are you referring to? If this is about Draft:The Monument Mythos, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Monument Mythos for reasons to keep the draft. In short, there isn't really policy to provide grounds for deletion.  (talk | contribs) 11:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Heya Masr Draft
Hello, you declined a submission I made for an NGO called Heya Masr, can you please give me the reason why? You said that it seems like self advertisement, however, I have no affiliation whatsoever with this NGO. Also, I believe my article was 100% neutral so can you please tell what was not neutral about my draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John koprivne (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The main problem was its wording. For example, you wrote, which isn't in a neutral tone. Another issue, which was brought up by another reviewer, was that the draft does not cite enough reliable sources, as most of the sources are published by Heya Masr themselves. Please fix these issues, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask here or at the Teahouse. Thanks.  (talk | contribs) 06:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added more reliable sources that aren't published by Heya Masr themselves as a response to what the first reviewer said. Also, the first reviewer said that starting from 3 outside sources, the article is considered to be in accordance with wikipedia regulations. I included 5 sources that aren't' published by Heya Masr. When it comes to the wording, I believe that the article is neutral as like I said before I have no affiliation whatsoever with this NGO. However, the example you provided, now that I look at it out of context, does seem a bit subjective so I changed it. Please, let me know if you have other specific areas in the article that I should change as I resubmitted the article for review. John koprivne (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will look at the draft later. In addition, I see that you asked the initial reviewer on his talk page, but I don't see any mention of 3 outside sources in his answer, nor in the pages he linked. Could you clarify where you saw that response?  (talk | contribs) 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was on his talk page in response to someone else's draft called: Ecuador Women's National Under-17 Football Team. John koprivne (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Another reviewer is currently reviewing the draft, so there's not much you and me can do right now. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions.  (talk | contribs) 06:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They just gave up on it for some reason, they didn't approve or deny so please feel free to give me any suggestions. John koprivne (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd recommend asking about the draft at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, where other independent editors can help.  (talk | contribs) 07:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CanonNi
您好 我覺得標題只有taiwan 沒有Republic of China 不太好 以Republic of China (Taiwan)為標 是我國人民的最大公約數 而且 內容上我的版本能讓大家更瞭解我國 Ian0421 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 您好，如果您想改变标题，请在 Talk:Taiwan 讨论，谢谢.   (talk | contribs) 14:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up on draft submission declined
Hello, CanonNi. Good day to you. I would like to follow-up on my recent article submission which you have just declined. I'm hoping you would kindly shed light on the reasons why. Based on earlier feedbacks by other editors, I've made significant changes to insert independent and relevant external sources.

I believe the words used presently describe the company as a whole, and they are all factual instead of advertorial. Regarding a comment on COI, I have declared it on my profile and once again, the article draft is purely informational on the company. There are literally tons of big names/organisations out there with similar tone/language on their articles.

Don't mean to sound rude or anything, just curious how to proceed as best as I could because I noticed there are entries facing similar issues. Really appreciate any help I could get on this. Thank you so much. Looking forward to hearing from you. Stevienetto (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, Stevienetto. The reason I declined the draft is because there wasn't significant improvement since the previous decline. It seems that no new sources were added.
 * The draft needs more independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Another issue is the external links in the draft. Please see WP:EXTERNAL and remove the links. Thank you for contacting me.  (talk | contribs) 06:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi CanonNi, thanks for replying. To be fair, the previous decline was solely talking about the COI aspect, which I feel doesn't make sense because isn't most articles are created from someone being invested in the subject/object to begin with.
 * Anyway, not sure how much more external sources I ought to add because most of them are available from the company and it's not "reliable" to be included. Any chance the latest edits are any better (have taken out many website links)? Once again, thank you for the help; appreciate some specifics given compared to the previous figures. Stevienetto (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing the external links in the body first, such as in the "History" section. In addition, a quick Google search has found many sources, such as this one and this one, so maybe consider adding some? The recent edits are definitely improvements, but more changes can be made. Thank you for asking!  (talk | contribs) 11:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Appreciate the feedback. Hope the new changes are good enough now. Do let me know your thoughts. Thank you so much for the help. Stevienetto (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see that you have added new sources and removed external links, which is great. If you're ready, you could resubmit the draft for review, and another editor will take a look at the draft shortly. (I won't review the draft myself, as I also contributed to it)  (talk | contribs) 04:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! Once again, thank you so much for your help. Cheers! Stevienetto (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Sorry to bother you, just that you're the only one who has been kind and helpful so far. Apparently the draft has been declined and at this point I'm just so lost and frustrated about the whole process. Feels like every editor/reviewer has their own standards and it's impossible to tick all the boxes, hence a never-ending cycle.
 * Am wondering if there's a possibility a different editor overseeing my draft instead of the same person if I were to submit without any changes (since I genuinely don't know what else is there to add on)? I apologise for the troubles. Stevienetto (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand how you feel. Consider asking about the draft at WP:AFC/HD, where other editors can look at the draft and give suggestions.  (talk | contribs) 06:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Request on 13:04:19, 10 May 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by ZDISK
Could you please provide specific details about how this page needs to be edited to conform to the Wikipedia standard? I don't see how it reads like an essay. It summarizes and cites peer-reviewed scientific literature - there are no opinions in the piece unless one takes issue with the word "seminal." The last section describes two alternative models for the mechanism of polyspermy block, but I feel this is an accurate summation of an unresolved and actively researched area. I am happy to continue to improve this page, but I don't understand the problem.

ZDISK (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply - I was busy yesterday. It seems that you got an answer at WP:AFC/HD, but let me know if you need more help.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 00:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Asking another chance to Submit my drafts
Hi,

Hope you're doing well. Just asking for another chance to submit my Wikipedia drafts, My assistant is handling my profile writing. If you could give me another chance, I promise to take the time to gather multiple sources to strengthen my profile. I hope you'll give me another chance. Thank you!

Kind Regards,

Erin Simpson Erin1313 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but after 4 declines and 1 previous deletion, it's hard to find the subject notable (WP:GNG, WP:NBIO). In addition, as you probably know by now, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged per WP:AUTO. Even if you are not directly writing it, there is still a conflict of interest. Furthermore, as other reviewers have said at the help desk, the draft still remains largely unsourced.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 09:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Creating Page
Hi, i noticed that you declined my submission for the person i am writing a biography about. It says the the reference does not follow wikipedia standard. I did include tons of reliable sources including one from new york times and united nations and from a nobel peace prize laurette along with other national news outlet. I wonder if you can help me improve it. Milos2024 (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Milos2024. Please see WP:Inline citation. Because your submission is a WP:BLP (biography of a living person), it requires inline citations for most statements. Feel free to ask here or at WP:AFCHD if you need more help.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The Great British Sewing Bee Series 10 appeal
I found some more reliable sources, can you appeal it please? Awise1203 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Awise1203 I would recommend asking, as they were the one who last declined the draft. I merely rejected because they said Next time, I'll reject this outright and I saw no improvement.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's not an unreasonable position, CanonNi, but the principle is that the rejecting reviewer is who will hear an appeal. I don't think it would look nice if I were to effectively overrule your rejection (and that is how it would appear to a casual observer).
 * In any case, has so far only alluded to new evidence of notability; I note that nothing new has been added to the draft, so there is as yet no grounds for an appeal. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for the reminder.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 22:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about Foodspring (written by me)
Hello @CanonNi, you approved the article and rightly rated it as Stub.

I have made some changed to the article and moved it from Stub to Start. Do you feel like this is appropriate, or should it be higher/lower?

Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @FortunateSons. The usual method to get an reassessment would be to list the article at WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment‎. Thanks for asking me.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Article approval
Hi CanonNi,

I was wondering if you could please review my article. It has been sitting in limbo for quite some time now. Thank you. SteventotheStevens (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @SteventotheStevens sorry, I, like many other AfC reviewers, do not do on-request reviews. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,107 pending submissions waiting for review.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)