Archives (Index)

2025 2026

This page is archived byClueBot III.

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your helpAvalotto (talk)22:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to create the minimal page about myself, not self-promote or anything. But you're giving me gyp like "not interesting enough". God!I just want to dissociate myself from Nelly Furtado, David Fonseca, Paulo Furtado, Legendary Tigerman, David Furtado Goa, and all these "notable" people. Not David Gilmour, exactly. And the info is true. Some links have disappeared. Just tell me what you want, if the page is not created, it's no big deal. It's just there are people asking, AI is more or less right but superficial, and a few people are personifying me, plagiarising, so... I could use some help.

Thanks.Johnchance2 (talk)08:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnchance2, if you want to get an article published on Wikipedia, it needs reliable, third party sources. Additionally, if you have aconflict of interest, such as being the subject of the draft article, you should declare that on the submission. Please seeHelp:Referencing for beginners or asking for help atthe teahouse.ScalarFactor (talk)15:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HiYou've flagged this as AI creation and I can confirm that's definitely not the case. I did run the article through a spelling/grammar tool after writing it to check for any issues but thats the limit to any automation used. I've added a few extra references and will resubmit but if you have any specific feedback then please do let me know.ThanksTkerby (talk)19:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tkerby, my rationale was largely due to the"notable presidents and figures section", which is a bulleted list that uses markdown instead of the actual working Mediawiki syntax. Even if you are using these tools for assistance,please verify that the output is working properly. Wikipedia articles do not bold list items for subtopics like that, and even if they do, using markdown ** is not the correct way to do it.ScalarFactor (talk)19:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was completely my fault - too used to using markdown in the day job and had incorrectly meant to bold them. Totally missed it in the preview. Did spot it this time round though and fixed it!Tkerby (talk)20:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your decline makes no sense at all. I have credible sources listed in the references section under IMDB (which if you actually researched that it was written by AOM's creator himself, Ronnberg alongside the official Moddb page.CosmicMan1125 (talk)15:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CosmicMan1125, the decline message states thatWP:RELIABLE,WP:SECONDARY sources are required. Please seeWP:IMDB andWP:SPS. I'd recommend looking for sources listed atWP:VG/S. If you need help, you can ask atthe teahouse.ScalarFactor (talk)15:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Ronnberg, the creator of the page of the game on IMDB is a reliable source in a extent because HE LITERALLY IS THE CREATOR. Moddb isnt a SPS either, it's a modding site where the game itself is listed and cannot be edited by users.CosmicMan1125 (talk)15:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The information may be reliable, butprimary sources cannot be used toestablish notability. It needs significant coverage in independent sources - published reviews would be a good starting point.ScalarFactor (talk)15:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is the mod is a very niche thing, only its successor Cry of Fear is well known.CosmicMan1125 (talk)16:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your confirmation.

I wrote the company information as neutral as possible.

Please review it again.Ediya008 (talk)04:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't re-review drafts on request. I'm sure another AfC reviewer will take a look sooner or later. Thanks,ScalarFactor (talk)04:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer.Ediya008 (talk)04:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i just started to editing a page and I don't know why it's said this was written by a LLMYiotro1 (talk)05:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The only source in the page you created has a bit on the url saying it was created by ChatGPT. Please seeWP:NEWLLM.ScalarFactor (talk)05:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change sourceYiotro1 (talk)05:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked for help atthe teahouse. Please ask questions there to not divide efforts.ScalarFactor (talk)05:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already changed sources but The specified revision is deleted or suppressed.Yiotro1 (talk)05:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for accepting my draft of the article I created, much appreciated, I tried my very best to get all the info it needed. Also just wanted to ask, is there by any chance you can take a look at this one when you get a chance:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canadian_National_1551, it got declined before and it's still awaiting for submission again. thanks.~2026-90057-8 (talk)23:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-90057-8 - first of all, thanks for the good submission and for contributing to Wikipedia. Making a new article isn't easy to do at all.

As for this draft, unfortunately I'm notparticularly a "train editor" so I'm less sure if this one would passWP:GNG. ForChehalis-Centralia Railroad 15, there are at minimum three sources that I consider to be definiteWP:SIGCOV for a GNG pass -The Olympian,Chronicle Online,Seattle Times; and several more beyond that. The sourcing forDraft:Canadian National 1551 is a lot less standout to me (though not obviously insufficient), so I'd prefer to leave it to an editor more experienced in articles on things like (historic) trains. It's also possible that it'd be fit to mention in another article, like how the 15 is mentioned inChehalis–Centralia Railroad.

With all that being said, thanks again for your quality submission, and I wish you the best of luck with the improvement & acceptance of this current draft. You may want tomake an account in the future, so that you don't have to rely on AfC reviewers if you're confident an article would survive deletion.ScalarFactor (talk)00:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I completely understand. I just thought I ask because the submission is taking a while for it to be reviewed, but no worries, I understand.~2026-90057-8 (talk)00:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scalar.. W. here.. can you help me build theBravada Vodka article with me.. cheers— Precedingunsigned comment added byWsfirefighter343 (talk •contribs)01:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry but I'm not in any position to be taking collaboration requests for new articles right now. If you need help, you can try asking atthe teahouse.ScalarFactor (talk)01:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

corrections and appropriate citation were correctedTat02948 (talk)03:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on creating some Lego-related articles lately and one of them is currently awaiting review (Draft:Rebrickable). I know AfC reviewers tend not to do reviews upon request so I am not requesting you do so but since you have reviewed a lot of drafts I was wondering if you might be interested in taking a look at it. If not, that is fine.NewAccount7295 (talk)20:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, but I don't generally review drafts on request. I'm pretty high on the AfC stats but that's largely because I decline a lot of stuff thatdefinitely isn't quite there, leaving the stuff closer to the middle.ScalarFactor (talk)20:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you.NewAccount7295 (talk)20:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]