User talk:Jovanmilic97/Archive 1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frame
Hi. I see you relisted Articles for deletion/Paul Frame for a third time. That's not wrong per-se, but it's generally not what we do. If people haven't found a consensus after three weeks, adding a fourth week is unlikely to make any additional progress. I wouldn't revert that or anything, just a heads up for next time. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was an error, I did not see I did it for a third time, so I am very sorry because tt was pretty obvious it would be a no consensus either way. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * @: I observed you just on a closed discussion.  I understand this as bad practice as it does not give a reflection of the order in which things occurred.  It also hides a possible non-admin early close of that discussion.  while that may likely have been the only viable result.  While in this case it would seem the only reasonable likely result overall reverting a relist is generally never acceptable (unless done immediately) and following a close discussion is also not acceptable.  My current suggestion is to leave as is ... as additional reverts at this point may not be helpful and I will also question  about the close.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This situation really turned into a mess that I caused at first place, so I did not know how to handle out my wrong relist, maybe its better to stay as is as its just nothing good to tamper with AfD from now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * RoySmith has put it nicely on Serial Number 54129's talk page ... a series of good faith small procedural errors. He's also chosen to sorted the AfD discussion to its state at the point of closure.  If more needs to be done or there's a challenge an uninvolved admin will sort it.  I'm more concerned because these bad practices can cost time and frustration if one is rescuing/merging a marginal article from an AfD discussion.  I've had merges that I could do with a price of cake when an AfD began but were very heavy going 4 weeks later when knowledge was no longer in my short or medium term memory.  There's a discussion going on there now which is interesting.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Archiving
I also notice that you've been regularly deleting old threads from your talk page. The generally accepted practice is to set up archiving. This is a process where a bot comes along periodically and moves old threads to a separate collection of archive pages. That way, the threads are still around for people to refer to, and can be searched. You should set that up. If you are having trouble getting it working, let me know and I'll be happy to set it up for you.
 * Please do help if you can, since I was not able to set it up and then I read archiving was not necessary, so I went away from it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've set you up with archiving, using the same configuration I use on my own talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you a lot! Appreciated. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request on 08:55:04, 25 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Timothy Honiss59
Hi, I am here to ask you about my article ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:South_Wellington_Intermediate_School&action=submit ) and the matter with the need for sources. I do know that all the info is correct and I do not know where I should attach sources because I got the info from staff members and plaques around the school.

Thanks, Timothy.

Timothy Honiss59 (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOR. Just original research on it's own cannot be notable or published on wikipedia. Basically, you need proof that what you wrote there is true through sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Comprehensive_Geriatric_Assessment
Thanks for your comment about external references in this AfC: 'What you need are more proper references integrated that will establish notability, not adding more external links'

1) I put the external reference there because it is a useful and authoritative source. I have mentioned it in the text, but felt people might not get through the text to identify is as such, so added it as an external link for clarity and ease of use.

2) I would have thought that 18 references overall (including the 5 authoritative textbooks on the subject!) would provide reasonable secondary source references, no? Kitb (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:SIGCOV which counts towards WP:GNG, having 18 references is good, but you need the ones that cover the subject significantly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

After looking more closely to the new edits you have changed since the declines, I have accepted the article. I dismissed some sources wrongly, and they do seem to cover the thing significantly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much - greatly appreciate your promptness & explanations! Kitb (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Draftification of Brat shows
Hi Jovanmilic97 ( ping ). Yes, these are all woefully deficient, but redirect to channel is pretty standard, ref article histories (similarly redirect to album for songs which don't meet NSONG, redirect to band for members who don't meet MUSICIAN, etc), and such draftification runs the risk of copy-paste moves and/or parallel recreation, which ends up adding to total workload, as does AFC. Draftification as an alternative to other processes can be controversial, and I'd say be conservative in what you draftify -- only things which have no suitable simple redirect, can't be directly saved through a simple WP:BEFORE and quick edit (with some consideration given to avoiding WP:BOGOF), that pass WP:CCOS, and where WP:CSD or WP:AFD shouldn't just be used directly. It might be useful if you participated (carefully) at WP:AFD to get a feel for notability guidelines before undertaking too much further draftification. Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave benefit of doubt the one who decided to ressurect the articles (and since that is recently created, a draft can be applied) to see if he improves something, certianly this is not sufficient for mainspace and I will be the first to decline it if it does not get worked on. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do know I have a very good participation on AfD, so I know about the notability guidelines (wars with redirects would not accomplish the job as the user would just keep reverting and mass nominating Brat shows to AfDs to erase the content would also add to total workload, am I right).
 * Hi Jovanmilic97 -- thanks, pings worked. End of the day, it's judgement calls all the way down, but to take Dirt as an example... The article was created in July, which isn't particularly recent. Moving the article to Draft has created a redlink at Dirt (disambiguation). Depending on the random editor, they would either 1/ delete the entry, or 2/ edit the redlink to redirect to Brat, or 3/ edit the entry to be redlink + bluelink to Brat, or 4/ move the draft back to mainspace and convert back to a redirect. None of these are good, as if content is written for Dirt to be an article in mainspace, or a redirect is created: option 1 means that someone is going to need to re-edit the DAB; option 2 means that there's a risk that someone will turns the redirect into an article; option 3 means that someone is going to have to re-edit the DAB, and there's a risk that someone will implement option 2; and option 4 means that standard practice is preserved but it's additional work to set things back up. (Re AFDs, apologies -- I must have searched in WPTALK space not WP space as I didn't see any). Cheers, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * When I said created I meant for the recreation by reverting the redirect, Option 2 does not seem like a real risk to me, because if someone wanted to do something with the article, it would have been done anyways and in fact I think it stops unexperienced editors who don't know how to remove a redirect, so to settle down I will have a blank Dirt (web series) and bluelink to Brat. Also no worries about AfDs, you can see here https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=Jovanmilic97 (click on Next 200 AfDs button for more) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

draft:Kahan Ho Tum
Will you please check that again,This https://images.dawn.com/news/1179057 is a reference from respected DAWN newspaper. Will provide others too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacock11 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article is WP:SIGCOV. Please read that. Dawn is a good place to take reference from, but it also needs to cover the show (not the actress significantly). Expand the article with sources before resubmitting. Thanks. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mistake
Sou reversed my AfC accept on a historic photography pair. Why? Draft:Larss_and_Duclos Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NARTIST you are calling on does not matter much when you are covering the partnership/organization which needs multiple reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you do not know what you are talking about. Nothing in Artist says it can't cover two people. There is intense interest even today in the events they documented. Try Googling the partnership before draftifying. Notable all day long.  Legacypac (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, okay. Even the source you cited says they were a corporation, so that means they are bound by WP:NCORP guidelines as well as WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging again as I have accepted the article myself with the expansion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks. I don't think NCORP was drafted with 1800s photographers in mind. Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Gustavo Zajac Hi Jovanmilic97, thank you four your message. Im new at this and i don`t understand very well how it works, you may notice because i don`t even know if it`s ok the place where im writting right now. Gustavo Zajac's article is an article in Spanish from which I made the translation into English. Sources are reliable but I do not know how to get both articles linked. Could you help me with this? Thank you!

--MeriAvila (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)MeriAvila

--User:WikiTimmy 27 November 2018 : Hey I'm just curious, why do you not have an actual page?

Request on 15:32:15, 27 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by CullingJ
CullingJ (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the swift review. Can I seek some clarification?

Reliable sources. I tried to give links to external confirmatory sources where possible. Which are not reliable? Action on Hearing Loss? York University? Or do I just need more?

Self-published works. These are the norm for an academic. Notability comes from citation. The Google scholar link gives evidence of extensive citation - nearly 12,000. I used the Lloyd A. Jeffress ] page as a model and don't see a qualitative difference in the form of citation.

Thanks again,

John CullingJ (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that what Quentin Summerfield published (works or books of his) is not going towards the notability because it comes off as promotion and becomes a primary source. We need secondary ones, what OTHERS wrote about him! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Request on 01:15:36, 27 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 3shoggoth
Hi! My initial article creation for Paul Major (musician) was refused because all my sources are interviews. I have found other sources that seem like they'd be legitimate to me but they do have links to purchase items on them. I guess I'm wondering if Wikipedia will flag those sources since they solicit the purchase of materials (in this case a book and a compilation album authored/curated by Paul Major). May I have some guidance on that? Thank you! 3shoggoth (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I have added said sources and re-submitted to see if this will pass muster. 3shoggoth (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 3shoggoth (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles on Military People
Thank you for your recent reviews of draft articles on military people. Per WP:SOLDIER, all generals and flag officers are notable. TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Pinging. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't WP:SOLDIER just an essay though? If it is widely used as semi guideline, I will accept the general articles. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a semi-guideline. Thanks for following up!  TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Help:Moving the article of AirAttack 2 to AirAttack - WW2 Airplanes Shooter
Can you move the article page of AirAttack 2 to AirAttack 2 - WW2 Airplanes Shooter? This is an expansion name of the game. In its current status, there is no page of the game in Wikipedia. Video game task (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I just saw User: Izno re-redirected article for no proper reason citing AfD that was kept. Fixed it back and reverted the article in its form. If you want to report this to admins, do it on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jennifer M. Kroot
Hi! A user came into IRC help asking about ways the article Draft:Jennifer M. Kroot could be improved. While I could offer them a few suggestions about formatting and such I would suggest that as the director of several notable documentaries that she satisfies the criteria of WP:ARTIST. While I am generally in agreement about interviews not helping to establish notability, I think those combined with coverage of her films themselves show that the presumed notability inferred by satisfying the SNG is correct and she is indeed notable. I don't review articles of those who come asking for help, but would ask you to reconsider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:DIRECTOR, she is bound by WP:AUTHOR guidelines and not artist, which means she then needs reviews of her doing in detail. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Director and artist take you to the same place :)Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oof, my bad. I will renominate the draft for submission! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:LettingaProperty.com
Thanks for the speedy review. Was unsure if the company was notable enough. I don't usually go through submissions, but in this case I'm glad I did, to get a second pair of eyes. KUTGW! MrMarkBGregory (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the likes of OpenRent have enough notability to be live?

Draft:Rajdweep
Hi Jovanmilic97 As you have declined the submission of Article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rajdweep, new references/sources have been added, which may be reviewed please.

Thank you for your quick review. Jaminianurag (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Aspera on Cloud Speedy Deletion Nomination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dvandestreek#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Draft%3AAspera_on_Cloud)
Hello,

Hope all is well. I recently submitted an Aspera on Cloud article for publication It was nominated for speedy deletion due to being too promotional in nature. I wanted to ask what changes would I need to make in order for the article to be published? The language used in the article is similar to that of Google Drive, Microsoft Azure or Dropbox. I am curious to what is impermissible. Thank you for your time.

Link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dvandestreek#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Draft%3AAspera_on_Cloud

Respectfully, Derek Van de Streek Dvandestreek (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Granny Smith video game still not appeared to internet
The Granny Smith (video game) page still isn't appeared in the internet. When I'm search the game under Wikipedia, there is no pages talks about this game, just like Granny Smith - Wikipedia. Can you leave simple instructions that other editors do a Wikipedia pages through internet portion for other time? Video game task (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD closure
Hi, can you please change your AfD closure here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dersim_ethnocide&diff=871630038&oldid=871186283&diffmode=source]? The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nom, not keep. The two are not the same thing. Seraphim System ( talk ) 13:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion in Playstation 5 article
Hello,

I saw that you just made a request for speedy deletion on Playstation 5, and I must say that I disagree with the speedy deletion. Sure, PS5 details are not yet officialy known, but there are a increasing number of sources and rumors about the Playstation 5. So, it might be a little too early, but it's not a hoax in my opinion.

Besides, even if one source was revealed to be a hoax, I don't think it's vandalism at all. What are you doing to my article I just made? It is awaiting official approval, even though it was made, and you already want a speedy deletion.

Did you even read the sources? Mikyspada (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what? I have reverted my speedy deletion notice, I can see your intentions are in right place. This will be declined though per WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? What? Since when did you be a admin/reviewer? If you're not a official reviewer, then I can't believe you at all. I saw you declined my requested, but I still need to confirm your identity, as I see you don't have a article on your page, only on the talk page. Mikyspada (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am an AFC reviewer per WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. I don't have to have a page to not be verified, sorry. No need to attack me here, you know. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't attack you. Wikipedia is such a very large page, that I so often forget that the page exists. Sorry. All is forgiven, I'll wait it out and resubmit the page in 2019, aka next year. Sorry for attacking you. Mikyspada (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, sorry if I was harsh too. :( I think that will be a good idea. For notice per WP:G13, from time to time do some editing on the draft, because it may be deleted by admins if it does not get a single edit in 6 months. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a much better draft at :Draft:PlayStation 5 Hayholt (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Dermatology Clinics
Dear Editor,

I would like you to reconsider publishing the wikipedia page on "Dermatology Clinics". Many peer-reviewed journals have wikipedia pages that are as brief as the page for "Dermatology Clinics". Many of us in academia use wikipedia to do quick searches to journals that give us information about inpact factors and subject. Please see the accepted wikipedia pages for other journals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cutaneous_and_Aesthetic_Surgery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Hospital_Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermatologic_Surgery_(journal)

Thank you for your consideration Biochemhipster (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Have in mind that most of these were created long ago when the rules of Wikipedia were more lenient (and some of these should be nominated for deletion on AfD for sure, I will look at all these). I would say to you this. Please add more references for the journal to establish notability so it would be able to pass WP:GNG. Thanks. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 18:29:54, 5 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Stamnonheb
Hello Jovanmilic97, You rejected the article citing "Add references in." There are links to the EGU and to TAU. Showing that Alpert is a professor at TAU, received the prize, etc. What more references are you requesting? Stamnonheb (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello! I am not requesting anything, but your article, like it says, lacks references that every article must have and thus is full of unreferenced content that is not verifiable. Please read how to make proper citations, and add them to support the draft. He may be notable or not, but the draft needs to be worked on first before it gets even ready for submitting, let alone accepting it. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Public Criminology
I'm confused. Was Public Criminology rejected or not? I received a message suggesting it was, but the page is now there. If it was rejected, I'm not sure I understand why. The rejection stated that it was " contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorKarpiak (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The page was always there (created by you), you just did not see that, so there is no need for your draft to exist as you can directly just improve the page I linked. Please edit there. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

AirAttack 2 - WW2 Airplanes Shooter i
The game is now in neutral, there is no any bias that the game departed from the fact. The references are depend on article size that is written in the page. In addition to this, the reference I cited is reliable, found in the internet. But I promise to improve this issue. Video game task (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:14:54, 7 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Psr1427
Please explain the reason of decline of my article on Tom Stoughton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_Stoughton. He has presence on many websites on web and also has wikipedia presence which confirms he has worked as young Sherlock Holmes in British crime drama series Sherlock. Please check this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Problem_(Sherlock)

Thanks. Psr1427 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Psr1427 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources exist in the article like IMDB, and wikipedia cannot be used. WP:NACTOR requires him to have multiple notable roles as well. He passes nothing at this point, sorry. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mikhail_Pochekin
Hello, Jovanmilic97!

I’ve added more sources: major newspapers including La Vanguardia, Kommersant, Diario de Navarra, Il quotidiano and musical magazines such as Ritmo, Melomano, Codalario. Could you please take a look at and share your opinion on whether they are enough?

Thanks!

Vsnaleikina (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will let another AfC reviewer to decide this time, you are free to submit your draft though. I do like you are persistent but not in a bad kind of way. Rare example of a Wiki user who despite declines actively tries to improve. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Mau King
Hi there. Regarding the (now deleted) Mau King article, and your comment how it requires sources. Just to make sure I understand: the sources I put there - the official website of the game and the Google Play store hosting the game - are not considered (reliable) sources? Does it need more sources or sources of a different type? Anyway, there are articles about many (maaany) other mobile game apps, I don't see why this one in specific was rendered a promotion for speedy deletion? You could say the same about all the other apps ? Дарко Максимовић (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You need multiple reliable secondary ones, per WP:SECONDARY to satisfy WP:GNG. Since this is a video game, you need reviews for Mau King here. Also the article had a very promotional tone, which is why admin deleted it (I just nominated). Official website and Google Play are primary ones (coming or connected to the ones who made the game). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Understood, makes sense. --Ml01172 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 05:17:18, 9 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by MaynardClark
The first reviewer had mentioned at one recent point that he would not reject the submission 'on notability grounds' but you cited notability as an issue. Could you clarify? MaynardClark (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * She seems possibly notable, but it is not well shown by wikipedia standards, because for that you need secondary sources, of which of you have a proper 1 in my opinion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 09:43:10, 10 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Dominik Hellfritzsch
Hey there Jovanmilic,

Thanks for your quick review. Is it possible to point me towards where specifically the sources listed are lacking? Also, which ones are "not about it at all"? I've checked all of them and they all relate to the software, the company, and/or the specific feature talked about in that respective section/sentence. My problem is that I used most of the same sources in the German version of the article and it is difficult for me to assess what is or is not acceptable here and on the German wikipedia, so I hope you can give me a little more input. Meanwhile I'll dig a bit deeper and see what further sources I can find. Sorry for any inconveniences! :)

Best regards,

Dominik

Dominik Hellfritzsch (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft-- McPherson Globe Refiners
Hello-- thanks for your assistance on moving sandbox to the draft area; I will request a review to get this page published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf360mk (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Raging Thunder 2
Hello! I am trying to help a novice editor to get this article entered into the 'pedia. If I am clear on your instruction to him, it was only lacking the citation to a "Metacritic" review? Is this the one? [] If there are any other suggestions you can make, I would appreciate them. The video game topic is well out of my realm. I thank you in advance, for your consideration and the work you have done on this so far! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What I meant is for him to include reviews from Metacritic. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just need to know if the link above is the one you asked about. I see he's working on the draft as we speak, and I'd like to help him wrap it up this evening, if I can. He's an ESL who I can tell is trying hard to be productive. I want to help. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season article
The Regular season ended on Saturday With Army Navy and there was suppose to be a 2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season article that should had happen 4 days ago I Created it and there has been nothing ever since. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dont resubmit until you add references and text (after something happens). Too early to submit this. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 23:19:13, 12 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Dr-Bracket
Hi! You just reviewed my Tron article and said it wasn't adequately supported by reliable sources. The page format was a bit messed up so I'm not sure if they didn't appear, but I followed the Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources page and have no promotional sources, no unreliable sources and no press release material. Would you still want me to add more sources? I left some in the talk page so I can go back and expand if need be, but not a single statement went unsourced in the article as a whole. Thanks!

Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing it! I will admit, I was having a mini heart attack thinking I did something horribly wrong. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry my bad! I have added reflist as well to the article, and because of what I did I will abstain from accept or decline. Sorry again! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft Page: Hamish (the Bear)
Dear Jovanmilic97, thank you for your speedy review of the above submitted draft page. Your reason for declining the page was stated as:  “they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. While I will upon your suggestion extend the reference list, and resubmit the page, I however would like to respectfully point out that the subject was fully and extensively covered in the media (at least 5 articles in over 11 months by BBC, as well as in a one hour television documentary), that are referenced in the page. BBC is generally accepted as a leading news and broadcasting organization worldwide. The topic was similarly covered over time in at least three continents publicly by a wide range of news organizations such as: Sky news, reddit, newsfeeds, msn.com, Daily mail, the guardian, The Irish News, New Zealand Herald, among many many others, that would be lengthy to reference individually. Obviously, the subject is not just another animal kept at a zoological garden, since such coverage is not usually extended to other similar animal of any age. Moreover, hundreds of thousands have shown interest in the subject, among which more than 30000 have actively engaged in naming him. Collectively, it should thereby be clear that the subject has great cultural link and significance. Is Wikipedia wide based enough to cover cases such as Hamish? The answer is Yes, since his namesake, Hamish MacHamish the cat, already has a page, with much less international notoriety. Respectfully, Mehran Neshat, Ph.D. (user name: Mneshat)

M. Neshat 01:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)User:Mneshat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

Draft:Cyanorus singularis
It's an accepted rule here that all named and referenced biological species are considered notable.  DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you refer me to the guideline for that, so I can apply it properly the next time? Thanks for the notice! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:3D Ultra Minigolf Adventures has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:3D Ultra Minigolf Adventures. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Des fleurs pour Algernon (television movie, 2006) -- submission refused
At this point I don't quite understand why this article has been refused – twice now. And I don't understand why it's been refused by someone who appears to not even have a proper “user page”. That movie exists, has been broadcast on national french TV, has been officially released in DVD, has been awarded in several prominent festivals, and it is based on a classic science fiction novel from a north-american author. What else does it require for it to be considered “notable” on english Wikipedia ? If “The Room” is deemed “notable”, then any movie ever released can be... Or is this a prejudice against foreign movies in general ? English Wikipedia is supposed to be the main version of the encyclopedia, as such it rightfully contains information about cultural works which are “notable” in non english speaking countries, and may not be relevant to most english speaking people, unless they have a “double culture” or a particular interest in those productions. Besides, I've seen countless articles on Wikipedia which don't come close to meeting that level of notability, sourcing and general quality – in particular, articles about movies which are reduced to a three lines plot description and casting list with an IMDb link as only third-party source. I did much more effort than that, and still it's not enough. Then what could possibly be ?--Abolibibelot (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, your someone who appears to not even have a proper “user page”. comment is totally unneccessary and comes across as rude. I don't have to have a user page, nor do I want to (just like you don't). This movie needs to pass WP:NFILM which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list or WP:GNG. I will go in detail of the references used here:
 * 1. Primary reference (comes from the production studio of the subject) that also just lists a synopsis. Not a WP:SECONDARY which adds to notability.
 * 2. Interview. Which is also a primary source (comes from the person directly connected to the subject, the lead actor).
 * 3 and 4 are awards. The Monte Carlo Film Festival award is a great one (also notable at Wikipedia as it has it's own article), but then it needs to be covered well in the article. Shouldn't there be coverage for that win in French sources to help up?


 * That movie exists Existence ≠ Notability.
 * has been broadcast on national french TV, it is based on a classic science fiction novel from a north-american author WP:NOTINHERITED on both counts.
 * I've seen countless articles on Wikipedia which don't come close to meeting that level of notability, sourcing and general quality WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of those articles are very old ones, while Wikipedia had lower standards (GNG rule did not exist). This being in a draft is subjected to review guidelines which does not make submissions easy to be accepted.
 * has been officially released in DVD No clue what you mean here. LOTS of movie released on DVD, but are not notable (direct to DVD movies for example).

Read WP:GNG to see what is considered notable. The draft needs multiple reliable secondary sources that cover the movie in detail per WP:SIGCOV. I am not saying this is not notable and you certainly did a LOT of effort comapred to a lots of drafts, but it just needs more references like I mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Henry Robert Frankel
Hello, Thanks for your response and help. Details of the "Life" section were provided to me by Dr. Frankel himself. What would constitute documenting this as a "reliable source"? Gary Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebunch (talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything you can find on the internet that is not coming from a blog, or a dubious looking website, but in detail or at least a short mention (if he is notable, there must be info on his life somewhere, would you agree?). If you can't, then remove it and resubmit. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 22:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebunch (talk • contribs)

Adam Friedlander
Hi Jovanmilic97! You had rejected my submission for an article on author Adam Friedlander. In the rejection, you advised that "Self published articles are primary sources. We need secondary ones." Would you please elaborate further so that I can ensure I'm providing the requested information. I believe the articles that I submitted were secondary: Insurance Journal, WorkComp Central, Crains New York, and the Insurance Advocate. Please let me know which one(s) you'd like to see removed and which ones need additional resources. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agiarrusso1 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Submission rejected/Amekh
Hello, you rejected my submission for a list of websites that provides data analytics for the MOBA game League of Legends. I had been working on adding several more websites to the list and more columns too, to make the table larger. It's not clear to me why this was rejected because it provides an important list for players. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:League_of_Legends_Data_Analytics&oldid=874079824

ViewPoint Model (VPM)
Hello Jovan, thank you for your time taken and presenting me with your comments - highly appreciated. I will be revising and resubmitting the Draft for your review asap. Greetings, Zsolt Zsoltnyiri (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jovan, my apologies for the delayed response - working hours are just hectic for a charity. Christmas is high season for us! I trust the resubmitted draft still says the same and meets the guidelines of an encyclopedia. All the best over the Festive Season's, Zsolt Zsoltnyiri (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Finnish Air Force sighting
This draft got declined second time with same two reasons: being based only on newspaper articles and not being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Neither of those reasons are actually valid for declining this article, atleast now when I added new sources. This article is not based only on news reports. It has also other sources than just newspaper articles. Iltalehti was only newspaper source that article had. One of the 3 sources was FURORA (which is finnish organization for UFO-research and one of them was Yle, which is large media, that has TV, Radio, Internet features, it is not a newspaper. Yle is actually Finland's national public broadcasting company. Atleast two books and UFO documentary movies tell about this incident. I now added to my article new sources: one book and two documentary movies. And about not being notable enough for Wikipedia, this incident is only UFO-incident to be officially acknowledged by Finnish Air Force and one of the best officially verified UFO-cases in the world. It can be compared to Condon Report's Case 2 in Greenwich, which was one of the best cases in whole research to give real evidence about UFOs. Condon Report said in its conclusion for that atleast one real UFO was probably reported. That research called Condon Report was made by The Condon Committee, funded by the United States Airforce to have a scientific research on UFOs. This case being similar to this Case 2 and being one of the best cases to give real evidence for UFOs, and being also known elsewhere than Finland, and being mentioned also in books and movies and several publications, means that this article is in fact notable enough for being in Wikipedia. Finnish Air Force sighting can be already found in finnish Wikipedia as Porin seitsemän ilmapalloa and should be accepted also for english Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulrah (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not read the WP:NOTNEWS. You need to prove that the event had impact years after it happened and that it got coverage. Also look at the talk page where a good faith user helped you with even more sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion nomination
Hi. It's about Crown Pop. Look at the article's talk page. Please remove the speedy deletion tag and try to avoid making hasty decisions in the future. It's not my fault that Wikipedia people don't think and don't even attempt searching for sources before they cast their votes at AfD. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did see, done! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did notice another user placed the non notable tag on the page, so prepare if it gets sent to AfD again (I will not nominate this of course). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the same user who nominated it for AfD two weeks ago. So I think he doesn't mind now. (I don't think the tag is justified, but I'm the article's creator and I don't think I should/can untag it. So I will just let the tag be for the time being.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas! Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Hello, Jovanmilic97! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Linguist111 my talk page 07:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Draft:Anindya Bikas Datta
Hello, Thanks for your review. The subject in question is a noted movie director from Bengal, India. I have added IMDB references and also removed all statements which do not have strong references. All statements in the article are now supported by references from leading newspapers of India. Please re-review after my resubmission

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Jovanmilic97: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 01:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Request on 04:36:27, 1 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Kitsunefuka
What makes this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheung_Sha_Wan_Catholic_Secondary_School) qualified but our school's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lung_Kong_World_Federation_School_Limited_Lau_Wong_Fat_Secondary_School) not?

Thank you.

Kitsunefuka (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Jovanmilic97 , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 14:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Your submission at Articles for creation: 3D Ultra Minigolf Adventures has been accepted
 3D Ultra Minigolf Adventures, 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. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=3D_Ultra_Minigolf_Adventures help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Request on 08:56:20, 4 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dominik Hellfritzsch
Hey there Jovanmilic,

A couple weeks ago I had some further question regarding one of my articles (anafee). I was wondering whether you could get back to me on that. This was my original message.

"Thanks for your quick review. Is it possible to point me towards where specifically the sources listed are lacking? Also, which ones are "not about it at all"? I've checked all of them and they all relate to the software, the company, and/or the specific feature talked about in that respective section/sentence. My problem is that I used most of the same sources in the German version of the article and it is difficult for me to assess what is or is not acceptable here and on the German wikipedia, so I hope you can give me a little more input. Meanwhile I'll dig a bit deeper and see what further sources I can find. Sorry for any inconveniences! :)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jovanmilic97#Request_on_09:43:10,_10_December_2018_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Dominik_Hellfritzsch

Hope you'll be able to help me a bit more, thanks in advance!

Dominik Hellfritzsch (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please reverse your NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim City: The Card Game‎
I was about to reply to Masem's policy contention when you closed the review. For the record I have boldy redirected and was reverted. See. Please undo your revert (and let the Oppose !vote be back in). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , done! Thanks for being fast to show me proof that it does not meet WP:SK. I have removed the redirect to request as AfD is still a deletion place discussion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also AFD is a perfectly valid venue to have a discussion about deleting and then redirecting, as is evidenced by the hundreds of times this has happened. It is widely accepted by the community. Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , exactly my thoughts and opinions! I just did not see it WAS boldly redirected (which should be tried first), hence my closure. Now it is all back up! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/David Lax
AdDs are also for contested prods. Always has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your closure of Articles for deletion/Yadav Nathwani
Hello, you may have missed this, but DeltaQuad asked for closure from 7 days from January 10, meaning that it should be closed tomorrow, owing to the target page being full-protected, the notice of proposed deletion wasn't added until the 10th. Thanks Nightfury 11:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I could revert it, but WP:SNOW keep is the situation here which goes over the Jan 17 timeframe. Not that the consensus would change much. Will update the closure for clarification. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of video game musicians
This is a bad close, no one said Speed keep, it's either a snow keep or you wait the full seven days to close the conversation. Govvy (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant Snow keep and speedy as in earlier before the full 7 days. Will correct myself. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

J. James
I saw you closed this discussion at AfD. You note that one user found sources. I just wanted to note that the sources I found referred to the games the source in the article claimed he played. My sources imply that James was not on the roster in the game announcement. They did not mention him at all. I do not know if he actually played in those games (perhaps as a late substitute). Just wanted to clarify. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 13:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

1877 Napier by-election
Hey, Why did you decline my submission? The topic that I am working on actually is really important since we are creating New Zealand by-elections which already have significances even before 20th Century. Are doing this to make me disappointed. Sheldybett (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No matter how important it is, you must pass WP:GNG which means multiple reliable secondary sources in detail. Not the case right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sheldybett (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mohammed bin Said bin Salim Al Shanfari
This draft has been declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohammed_bin_Said_bin_Salim_Al_Shanfari I compared it with this article about a man who was my friend before his death Edward Wilson (actor) There are as you can see many similarities in the two lives

The Wilson article has very few references/citations in comparison with the Shanfari article Not every fact in the Wilson article is "proved" eg academic history So I am puzzled ....... can you help me with that please

Is it necessary to prove every single thing? We have difficulty in that the facts of our article largely took place before the Google/Data/IT era and evidence is occasionally difficult to gather in a useable form,

Thanks for you time and your help ... its appreciated!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtaxman (talk • contribs) 08:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjay Chhimpa
Hii Jovanmilic97 I have added a number of links which show that he has acted as a singer in many films, which is mentioned in the film Wikipedia page with the name. I also enclosed the Imdb link in which all the singer data is present. You will reconsider this and publish it

Respect Gsswiki5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:697:3352:2BC0:4B1B:77CF:79F4 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

About the draft article Draft:Syed Sahil Agha
Hello, I noticed that in the above draft you made this comment: "Improperly sourced. Please read how to cite sources. Links need to become references, not just bare url posted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC) ". I don't know if you are aware of it, but WP:AFCSTANDARDS makes very clear that having bare URLs as sources, while not optimal, is not a reason for declining an article for publication. Please don't make comments like this when they are patently untrue, yes? It confuses and discourages contributors. Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello! From what I know, per WP:MINREF BLPs have to be inline cited, which is what AFCSTANDARDS is calling on as well. So as such it does not meet inline criteria standards and thus I declined. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's work through this then. I am certainly open to learning here!  I had another look at the references.  They actually were inline cites, but the person who wrote them had put in bare URLs for the "website=" parameter of the Citeweb template, and this caused an error for every citation.  I have now gone ahead and fixed these so that all of the cites now show no errors, and the all are (and already were) "inline" cites.  Do you think that if you saw the article now, would you go ahead and publish it?  It is still very short, of course, but length is not usually a criterion.  A loose noose (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say I kind of agree with Snowycats on this. Not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References are either citing about what he said, making it WP:PRIMARY, or he is a passing mention in a bigger event. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, here's a different question: do you think it would survive a deletion discussion? A loose noose (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I feel like you are testing me here :). Please read Review guidelines on WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions which says "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason". So whether it would survive or not (and I think it would not), it doesn't matter here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, not meant as a test, rather a question of philosophy, and for my own better understanding. :-) Thanks for your insights!  A loose noose (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)