User talk:TTP1233/Archives/2021/November

15.11.2021 question by Johnx4566789
Hello sir, Sorry for the inconvenience, can you please tell me what to do in order for my article to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnx4566789 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, kindly give me some time for giving your answer.Jyoti Roy (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So . You see, your article is not ready for notable. As significant or primary coverage is some missing. See, WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BLP for creating a new article. But also read WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) for balancing the tone of the draft. These are the essensial things for creating a biography of a living person. Hope you got your answer. Visit Teahouse on WP:TH for more answers. Good luck.

Regards,

TTP1233.

Jyoti Roy (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@TTP1233 thank you sir very much, I don't know how to repay you for your kind of word. I have edited the page Draft:Khattab_Faleh_Hussein Maybe you can give me your review again, because Mr.Khattab payed me to write his bio, please if you can help me I would be eternally grateful for you sir. John.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnx4566789 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Article Klaus Becker
Thank you for reviewing my draft, I was still working on editing sources and working on what other users had critiqued and accidently published. The sources you are referring are not available online, I only have the hard copies. I can scan them if you need to see them. I will do my best to resolve the other issues and hope I can get the draft to a state were it is good enough for publication and approval. Thank you for your help, I appreciate the comments 2603:6080:4540:99:353A:B8FF:E4DD:EC5B (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, kindly find more source on it; with maintaining the guidelines and your article will approved under WP:GNG. thank you.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Kolping Society
I had stepped away from this, having lost a number of references in the midst of a simultaneous edit conflict with a previous reviewer who had overlooked the fact that the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia is Public Domain. I take exception to your opinion that the draft "is not sourced properly". Part of it was taken from the Adolf Kolping article and duly attributed: "Please see the history of that page for full attribution." The Catholic Encyclopedia forms the basis of over 10,000 articles on Wikipedia and is perfectly fine on a mid-nineteenth century organization. The German author was the editor of Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Catholic New York is the newspaper for the Archdiocese of New York with 2.8 million Catholics; ditto for Catholic Charities. The Voice is the local paper for Sterling Heights, Michigan with a population over 134K reporting on activity of a local historical society -and perfectly reliable. Those four account for about a half dozen citations, which I've noticed is generally adequate for a start -and more than a lot of stubs have. Every paragraph appears to have at least one citation. If the rest are too "Catholic", it is after all a Catholic organization most prominent for assisting German immigrants. The local chapters are in the best position to indicate what their activities are. In my opinion a tag for more references would have been appropriate; not a declination. It was "sourced properly". Manannan67 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You gave a good explanation, and saw that draft once more, also you have improved a bit. As per the rules, you can resubmit and continue with your research on this, if you think to do so. This time, any other reviewer will look this draft, and if you think no one review it after some days, please remind me and I will do the rest of the work. Hope you understand .--Jyoti Roy (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your reviews at AfC
Hi TTP. I came across one of your reviews and took a look at some of your other recent ones. Can you explain your rejection of Draft:Munir Essa Semon and your decline of Draft:Nathan Alexander Stedman, Draft:Sunny Lai and Draft:Kolping Society? On the last three, you used the decline reason 'Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements' - what level of inline citations is required on these? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Mr., thank you for your question. So, I will explain with following points:


 * Draft:Kolping Society & Draft:Nathan Alexander Stedman has notability and I can accept it but in my first review, I see that few additional references (secondary sources) may require. So I decline it at my first review. But after some improvement and explanation given by on User talk:TTP1233, I quite moved. So I thought by next review, I will mark it but I was busy in my educational works, I didn't do it.
 * Draft:Nathan Alexander Stedman has only marked as minimum inline citation requirements. Not these two. Explaining with it, I saw one or two sources were not in that form but now after your message, I carefully saw it. I by-mistakenly decline it. So I appolozige for that.
 * Draft:Munir Essa Semon doesn't in that encyclopedia format than other articles. So I reject it. Secondly it is not yet to qualify notable as per the guidelines. And all sources are arabic. For this particular I thought I don't want to review it but I was surprised by this format.
 * For Draft:Sunny Lai, I can't answer this. It is already reviewed.
 * That's all, and by the way. Are you also a reviewer like me or just a participant? If any questions or complaints you want to know, I'm there to help you.And last thing, call me TTP1233, not TTP.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:NS Dibyojyoti&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/NS Dibyojyoti. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC) , Ok, I'm the sock who was blocked one year ago. I confess it but in this account no one had ever complained against me on my issues of contributing Wikipedia. I know that 6 months is big time. More over I can't request anymore unblocks in my previous accounts, which includes my main account. So this was the last chance of me to prove that I'm not guilty. But somehow I failed in a indirect manner. But I have my last request. Please dont revoke my edits or articles. As they were done under regulations of Wikipedia. Anyways thank you for the services you gave me during this time. God bless you all. And final thing, if I request my unblock again in my account here, as I mentioned you above, after 6 months. Then please unblock this account at least. I will confess later that I was a sock of former accounts. Please answer my response.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)(sock of User:NS Dibyojyoti.)