It is 6:19 AM where I live. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day I may well not be online. For accurate time please purge the page.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

I think the consensus was to keep this unchanged from Kaakki Sattai, and to move only the 2015 film. Could you please move the 1985 film back? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 Done, thanks for letting me know. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors Annual Report Our 2024 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reversing my edits to GHS's page. I am a student and am trying to give viewers a better view of what it is like to attend Greely, along with the schools history. You are why wikipedia has gone downhill, supporting facist-style censorship on the site. Owenstewart12 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophisticatedevening: Owenstewart12 (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophisticatedevening: Owenstewart12 (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit due to the addition of disruptive material here, where you added, "F*** Yarmouth" and "In the winter of 2025, Jaqueline "Jackie" Hayes was taking into custody by the national guard after being classified by the US Government as a national security threat. After escaping from authorities, Jackie now lives her life on the run. She was last seen on 3/3/25 living with a tribe in Papua New Guinea. Little is known about her current whereabouts, please contact officials if you have any information regarding Hayes, as it could save lives." Please refrain from adding things like that in the future. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sophisticatedevening, you've twice put the listas for this band to "Stellar, Been", but I think it shouldn't be treated as a name like that. GanzKnusper (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected it, thanks for letting me know. It was added back into the category after the first revert and I didn't notice, so thank you for catching it for me. Cheers Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) GanzKnusper (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Talk:Shruthi L seems to have had the effect of duplicating the BLP notice. Is this an issue with the JWB tool? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Oh dear I see it. I think for some reason there was an existing BLP template outside of the banner shell, so when I added it as a parameter the template was still there. I'm checking the other ones to make sure it's just the one, but thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You always manage to get the rv's done first! Thanks for putting in your time.(someday I'll beat you...just you wait;) )(Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 21:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I really appreciate the kind words. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ありがとうございました！

DTApple (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your help at AfC. Just a note: If you come across any submissions that have a block of unsourced text and one or no sources present in the whole draft, consider checking it for copyright violations. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is very helpful. An example is Draft:Julian Breece. SK2242 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 10:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what problem with my article? can you help to solve it Zhappass (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entire article is unsourced, with the only references being to a research paper and a "seventeenth-century Persian popular romance". [1] Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 12:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theyre was work of kazakh historan Zhappass (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.academia.edu/106697438/INFORMATION_IN_%C4%80LAM%C4%80R%C4%80_YE_%C5%A0%C4%80H_ESM%C4%80%CA%BF%C4%AAL_ABOUT_THE_KYRGYZ_OF_THE_XVI_CENTURY can you check this Zhappass (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP, there is no evidence that the paper is peer reviewed or vetted by another person. A single paper on a topic is not enough to verify the information in the article. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 13:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro this is one of the best history scientists, so theyre no other source so i said about that this only evidence in my article i said about that is not 100% true Zhappass (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind message. Of course, I am very happy to wait for your response (which I hope will be positive!). Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the copyvio comment, it looks like the site copied the draft, not the other way around. That was mostly a reminder to myself to ask for a second opinion and look closer at it when I got a chance. Cheers! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sophia,

Thank you for making changes to my article. As long it does not get deleted, I am fine with any changes you make to it. I am willing to fix them each time you delete whatever should not be there. HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept that I am new so this may take months to go public as an article. HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll swing by the draft in a little bit with more feedback, just make sure everything you write is in your own words to avoid copyright issues. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article of today.com and said "today.com reports" and semi changed it to my words. HomerLikesMarge7285 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , thank you for leaving a note on my draft. I added more sources as you asked, but I am unable to exctract more information from the original description of the species because the publication is in Italian. I was recomended to expand the species list of Strongylosoma genus and almost every species I added does not have an article, so i wanted to make small starter articles for each of them so they can be grown by everyone. Is it alright , and is it better to always include at least 3 sources to begin this sort of small articles ? Antojien (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, these articles are always welcomed. WP:NSPECIES has good guidance that you might find helpful for this. Generally, 3 sources are asked of any article to verify the information and prove notability. While English sources are preferred, there is no requirement that sources have to be in it so long as they are reliable, independent and secondary. Most articles start off as stubs, so don't worry too much about the length. I would also recommend checking out WikiProject Tree of Life if you're interested in these topics. Feel free to come back if you have any questions, good luck! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 02:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sophisticatedevening! Thanks for helping out at AfC. I came across some notices you left at User talk:MikeJanetta#Your AfC Submission has been moved and noticed you've been using Template:REVISIONUSER in lieu of your username. Which means that, at the time of your revision, your messages show correctly, but when I edited it, my name shows up in place of where yours should be! This should be avoided, as it causes confusion for the user who received the message as well as future editors.

Are you manually copy-pasting Template:AfC move? If so, that's fine - but make sure to replace the "REVISIONUSER" parts with your username when doing so. You can also leave the notice with {{subst:Afc move}} which does that for you automatically. In case it'd be helpful, there's also a Draftify gadget available that a lot of folks working in AfC (me included) use that automates the notice-leaving process for these cases. ~Liance^talk 02:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my bad, please disregard what I said above - I got confused viewing the template page instead of your notices. The issue was just that you didn't use subst: in front of the template. Make sure to include it when leaving notices in the future to prevent the username issue. ~Liance^talk 02:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for letting me know, that saved me a trip to the village pump. I saw that a few minutes ago and was baffled because the diffs didn't show any difference with the name change. I was manually typing the template and must have forgotten. Also thanks for letting me know that Draftify does that, I thought it only worked for mainspace. Cheers! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just as confused as you were, haha. Took me a couple of minutes to figure out what was really happening. Good thing we managed to get it sorted! ~Liance^talk 02:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of reference must I add to be accepted? I thought it was sufficient but according to your review it was not. Also thank you for reviewing so fast! Its tomukun (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3 references are a google search, a fiverr link and credits at a small video game website. These are not enough to establish notability, as I have no idea what I'm looking for in the google search, fiverr is user generated and the credits do not provide significant coverage. Feel free to resubmit when you can find multiple reliable, independent and secondary sources for it and another reviewer will take a look. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

Regarding your recent deletion of my article, I do not see why it should have been deleted. Please clarify with me.

Reasons:

It is already a page on the Czech Wikipedia.

He is a notable person.

There are many articles on Wikipedia like this one; why should this article be deleted?

If you could undelete or explain to me why it was deleted or what I could do to improve it, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Roc1233 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Roc1233 Don't worry, your draft was not deleted it is right here. I declined it because it only cites 2 sources, leaving a lot of unsourced information throughout. Don't give up, you have plenty of time to keep improving, there is no rush. Spend a few days researching more sources, and resubmit when you feel ready. Another reviewer will take a look at it and decide then. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you i really appreciate your response Roc1233 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you know how many sources i need to cite? Roc1233 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no magic number, but all statements made need to have a source to back it up. Check out WP:YFA and WP:REFBEGIN if you still have questions. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Roc1233 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sample Sanitarium - Wikipedia

I've added more sources to it carefully this time. The sources contain Fresno bee which documents history as it is being created. I don't know if this is a problem or not, but Fresno bee's Newpaper website wants you to pay before entering because of reasons with info stealers. But it has everything documented, even buildings with little knowledge to them. There are no articles like the ones on Fresno bee containing any information about this building. A lot of fresnans are already subscribed to this though. Latermon23 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look at soon. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you. Latermon23 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Userpb1978 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CONEXEN ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like if someone could review my draft again. I provided references to independent newspapers with links. More than one. In the articles it is explained what the organisation does and also it links to independent awards won. I am not sure why I was told that it looks like an advertising. I is written very plainly without exageration and I provided the third party links. Thanks in advance

Userpb1978 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do not review the same draft twice, you can resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look at it. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shahanshahi Calendar - Wikipedia

I understand that you apparently don't review the same draft twice. However, as I'm a new member on English Wikipedia, could you please explain a bit more clearly what kind of citation is required? I’ve edited the draft again and added two direct citations from well-respected historical books. Also, there is already a Persian article on the same topic on Persian Wikipedia: w:fa:گاه‌شماری شاهنشاهی

I'm not sure if the draft was declined due to a lack of reliable citations or because the topic is considered not important enough to warrant an article based on those citations.

--Saĝaĉjo (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the draft as there were not enough reliable sources to establish notability at the time. 2 of the citations were commons photos to newspapers over 40 years old, and the Iran encyclopedia one was iffy. The BBC one was good, but it was not enough to prove notability. Feel free to resubmit when you are ready, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, so now with adding two citation from two books it seems good. Thanks for your time Sophisticatedevening :) Saĝaĉjo (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand why the article does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject. My reason for creating this article as a Wikipedia page is purely to alert and educate those who are interested in the advancements that have been made in aerospace. The article is not selling anything, so it is certainly not an advertisement. The subject is notable, the content is written from a neutral point of view, and refers to a range of independent, reliable, published sources.

I have gone out my way to ensure that the content is from people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject from reliable sources..TullaMelb (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is filled with WP:PEACOCK terms and is far from a neutral point of view. The draft focuses on what company offers and how it helps with statements like, This technology offers a cost-effective alternative to satellites and low-altitude aircraft. The issue isn't the notability of the company, it is how the article is written. Feel free to resubmit when you are ready, Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Millsy0303 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Un mot pour Kevin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was wondering why you decided the article is not significant enough if it is simple a translation of an existing french language page. I can include more references, although there are already enough in the citations in my opinion. The video is well known throughout quebec and the phrase "bonne fete Keven" said to any Quebecer under 40 will generally elicit the response "continue comme ca" which is noted in a radio segment here that I will include in the article.

The video is also cited in this documentary about the name Kevin in Quebec as the turning point for the decline in popularity of the name Kevin in Quebec, which is referenced in one of Quebec's largest newspapers, Le Devoir, in this article.

Millsy0303 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given do not support sustained and significant coverage of the video. All of the ones provided seem a few news articles on its 15 year anniversary. The documentary, radio segment and newspaper are only passing mentions, with the main focus of them on the name Kevin, not the video itself. French Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines on notability that are separate from here. I have no way to verify if it is well known throughout Quebec and if saying it will elicit that response, so if you can provide more sources with significant and sustained coverage of the video itself, that would help the article out a lot. You can always resubmit and another reviewer will look at it, good luck. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cancellation of the article is not understood for the same reason, it should be implemented so that it is not ambiguous and has a section for people with the last name just like articles like hatz or hetzer 186.11.43.197 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the article because there is no reason to have a disambiguation page for articles that don't exist. If those articles were to be created then the disambiguation might be necessary, but they aren't right now. It doesn't help to have an index of redlinks in the mainspace. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a little more time to create the articles in red 186.11.43.197 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the article is declined not rejected, so if there is multiple pages created and a DAB is necessary to stop confusion, then it could be accepted. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be uploaded now the article is not in red Countet (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You only have a single article, that does not need an entire disambiguation page. When you have more, you can resubmit it and another reviewer will look at it. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article by mountaineer Anton Hetz had been created but the user SafariScribe rejected it because it was not necessary for Wikipedia

Draft:Anton Hetz (1830–1900), Austrian mountain guide and alpinist

So they don't help much to implement things either. Countet (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is rejected, so I can't help you anymore. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to create an article about the people with the last name but it is impossible if they reject any request then we just have to settle for the poorly implemented page that only talks about the term with a single definition and an added person is very bad since anyone who sees it will think that the meaning of hetz is strictly Hebrew and that is not the case, it is a word from German and Hebrew and it also has another meaning in Austria but the last name is not related to the word, we must be clear in There is no relationship between the term and the surname since the surname is a nickname for Hermann and in individual cases of the Hetze (bird).

Hetz

This page is poorly implemented and confusing, they should put more definitions and not confuse the word with the surname Countet (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions about the rejection I would direct you towards the reviewer's talk page. If you think that the Hetz DAB is confusing then I suggest you be WP:BOLD and attempt to fix it. Good luck, but I cannot do anything more with this. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sophisticatedevening, with great respect, I tell you, they do not want to solve it, they do not accept anything more than a very poorly implemented page and with that we must settle. Countet (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just by checking the page you will find a lot of people's discontent but it must be left without any solution. Countet (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not really my speed, sorry I can't be of use. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wrote to the user be bold. I hope it helps me improve the article. Countet (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I found many references but added just the best ones. Anything else? R3bennett (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are independent of the company, and therefore do not count towards notability. Keep working on it and try to find different ones. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather odd to leave the result of the discussion with inconsistencies like:

• 2005 Swedish football Division 2
• 2005 Swedish Football Division 3

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof I'll start working on moving those to lowercase Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 15:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I suggest to add a description of that action to the RM closing summary. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apparently since the lowercase titles are redirects I'm gonna need to submit technical requests. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 16:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnsmackenzie (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dalgety Bay Sailing Club ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not clear on why the submission isn't meeting the standards. I have external references, so is it the quality of those citations? Or is the subject too generic? Other pages eg Royal Findhorn Yacht Club have a similar approach. Any guidance appreciated!

Johnsmackenzie (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provide enough significant coverage around the subject to evidence notability. Notability is required for all articles, and without it it cannot be accepted and moved. Keep working on it and finding more sources and resubmit when you're ready. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have not been draftified that fast, considering that the last constructive edit occured minutes ago. Per the relevant guideline, articles should not be moved when there are major edits within an hour. I was also intending to move the article to draftspace as a COI issue (the author completely bypassed the AfC process), but I would do that after an hour of the last edit. So take care when moving the article to draftspace. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was thinking about that after I did it and was trying to figure out what I should do about it. That was a big mess-up on my part, sorry about that. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		Have seen your name come up a lot in AfC queue these past few weeks. Thanks for helping to bring down the number of pending submissions - you're doing great work! ~Liancetalk 21:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Liance I think you were assigned as my mentor when I started haha. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's pretty funny! Not sure if we interacted much previously, but it seems like you've managed to get the hang of things pretty fast, which is great. And, I'm always happy to see more folks doing draft review. It helps out for sure.

By the way, you're the top AfC reviewer this month. Thanks again for your efforts and keep up the good work. ~Liance^talk 22:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Business Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements (Events facilitated by others): The European Destubathon – a stub improvement contest/editathon from 1–30 April 2025 Tip of the month: When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT. Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited, it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name. Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women) 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I have made changes in the links and tone of page, please approve it. Gautams742 (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve my page, I have fixed it Gautams742 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Curator,

I created a page for DistroTV on March 31, but quickly rejected.  Can you please shed some light on the reason for rejection?  That would help me make better writing in the future.

I have added multiple reference links that are from 3rd party reviews of the product, that I believed to be independent and in-depth.  Is there any particular reference that is bad?  Or do you need more references?  Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DistroTV 2601:640:8003:5910:51D7:2F33:5F5C:BDD8 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given are not independent of the subject or reliable. Two of the five are from the company website, crunchbase is just an unreliable database of companies, and the other two only gave a short article that announced the company was launching, with no coverage after that. Therefore fails WP:NCORP at the moment. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I can remove the crunchable link because I didn't know it was deemed as unreliable. Do you suggest the I should not link to the company/product page itself? As a user, I normally find a link to the company/product useful but maybe it should not be a reference, but as a 'external link'? 2601:640:8003:5910:51D7:2F33:5F5C:BDD8 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One or two external links to the company website is fine, but it does not contribute to notability. There needs be multiple independent, secondary and reliable, and they must show significant coverage of the company. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I modified the article according to your suggestions and resubmitted for review. Appreciate your time and help, have a great day! 2601:640:8003:5910:51D7:2F33:5F5C:BDD8 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sophisticatedevening, I have taken note that the draft of the article was refused because of the sources. But I didn't understand the reason. Is it because the sources are in French?

Thank you very much 89.2.157.193 (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined because it was not adequately supported by reliable, independent and secondary sources. Sources can't be from sites the company is affiliated with (i.e. company websites), that does not contribute to notability. Don't worry about the language they are in, that doesn't really matter that much. Keep working, and resubmit when you are ready. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your comments on another talk page, and I'm afraid to say I found your signature illegible. In the interests of accessibility, could you please change it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do you think you could specify what is problematic about my signature? I can't really fix it without knowing what I need to adjust. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 10:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the text, it's impossible to make out your username from it. I would guess this is a combination of using an obscure and small font. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm just a little wary of making super dramatic changes to it like the font, do you think there is any other tags I could add to adjust it that are a little more easier to read? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would get rid of the font entirely, and use the stock one. I don't want to pull rank but the behaviour guideline says "Do not make your signature so small that it is difficult to read. As some users have vision problems, be conscious of color and contrast issues. If you use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 All right I think I found a reasonable solution. This is Garamond with italics, is this a little more legible? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest increasing the size. I have difficulty reading it, and was told by my ophthalmologist that my near vision is corrected to the near vision equivalent of 20-20 with computer glasses. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having some trouble with the syntax for that right now so I'm gonna head over to w3 later and try to figure it out when I get a chance, but I'll try to make it work. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Testing this one, probably will be fine temporarily Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

upped to 1.2 em, removed bold Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added references and detail to the new page I've suggested: Draft:Zero Hour (UK campaign). Would very much appreciate any additional feedback. :-) Isle of Islay (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely a significant improvement. I don't have time to go through the 100+ new citations but I'll check prose. Detail is fine, but try to minimize their aims and goals and focus more on the company itself. MOS has a few issues like the bolded links, but those can be fixed later. Give a good once over for any WP:PEACOCK or weasel words as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read WP:OVERCITE, the quantity of the citations and how close they are makes the text look very cluttered as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I didn't know what they were trying to do with the random titles, so I asked, and we now know less than we did before I asked. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what they were talking about, even if for some reason it was just a test or error and they were trying to move it back, then why on earth would they do it 11 times?? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]