Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Veo (company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jamiebuba (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help, but you lack the knowledge and experience needed there and are misinforming people. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Veo (company), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guninvalid. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Veo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Second Gilded Age. Thanks! Tavantius (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox article cites a handful of books. I could cite the books themselves, but I haven't read them. In hindsight maybe I should, but I'm not sure what counts as a "secondary" source in this context. guninvalid (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Gilded Age, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suggest to any editor that they use sockpuppets, either to evade blocks or for any other purpose. If you do so again you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "if you can". I wasn't sure the total extent of Tiamat's block. I'll refrain from saying stuff like that for indef blocks in the future. guninvalid (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Neologisms require multiple sources not just using, but discussing, the term. Each of the sources cited here is, in one way or another, borderline at best. I don't think this draft is a million miles from acceptable, but it's not quite there yet IMO.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Throning and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only 100 more before EC. guninvalid (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this is my 500th edit! 8 days later, almost to the minute. Yet another edit at 1:30am. guninvalid (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guninvalid! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How do I welcome a new user?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		for your great work in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Thompson (businessman), especially your very well-reasoned summary of the arguments of both sides, which was cited by the closing administrator. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Though I won't be doing that again per Liz. guninvalid (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I see what you mean. Hadn't noticed that, only Sandstein's invoking your analysis. So I imagine there's a conflict of views among admins on this. I see her point. That said, I must say I was pleasantly surprised with the close. A very good one, though of course I'm prejudiced. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Lemonaka were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

"While throning can be seen as a negative, many negative outcomes can be avoided when both persons are aware of and okay with it..." This looks like something original research.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Throning and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Lemonaka 02:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sayfo on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guninvalid! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Can I close my own RfC?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any activity at this RfC you opened in about two weeks. Would you mind asking someone uninvolved to close it?Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did ping Liz to ask her and she has not done so. I'd bring it to WP:ANRFC but I don't know how to. guninvalid (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you'd use this option: "Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section." That being said, it's been two weeks, and the page says after 30 days the RfC is "ripe for closure" Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done guninvalid (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for trying hand with RFC at Taylor Lorenz. many of the more contentious RFCs are a minefield, but appreciate your effort. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Another day, another lesson. Maybe procrastinating on homework by editing Wikipedia isn't such a great idea after all. And maybe closing RfCs on an empty stomach isn't great either. guninvalid (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all been there. and i've been dragged to WP:ANI and other forums myself for closing when others think i shouldn't have closed. don't think i know how to close super contentious RFCs myself yet either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have been recently editing the Lauren Handy article, thanks for your efforts, but FYI it's unfortunate timing. Just want to prepare you for the fact that you're likely going to be accused of sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting/whatever you call it. The original author of the article has aggressively protected their biased version of it. I tried to address this, some other new editors did too, at least on the talk page, and the original author accused me of sockpuppeting and even reported me. I put a lot of effort into fixing the article all for it to be undone. So I tried to get admin help and there's an open investigation and they are siding with the original author and telling me I am a 'meatpuppet'. Unfortunately this is all at the same time as your recent edits. Anyways I gave up on Wikipedia altogether but just wanted to prepare you that you might get caught in the storm. Good luck FactsheetPete (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. I started editing because I saw you on WP:AN. Looking through I'm genuinely trying to improve the article and provide more context/remove poorly edited and poorly sourced information. guninvalid (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a terribly worded response. Basically I'm just trying to say that I am only on the side of improving Wikipedia. I have no interest in taking sides with or against FactsheetPete. guninvalid (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite shocked by your statement that you pingged me in[1]. Now I could excuse the fact that you might have read some of the posts out of order, or also confused things that were not indented properly, because it doesn't look like you were an actual party to the conversation in real time.

1. My very first post was to respond to FB claim of a possible sock, I responded with the SPI clarifying that NO SOCK was found, and also paraphrased the SPI that, ...there might be some other coordination going on... These are statements from a Checkuser, not myself.
2. I never made any reference to meat, because I've never believed that is the case here (and you'd be hard pressed to find any of my edits to that regard).
3. At least TWO other editors[2][3] actually directly mentioned the possibly of meat, and yet no admonishment from you for those?
4. What you will find is after FSP provided a rational answer[4], which was in response two only two different questions, I felt like the provided a reasonable answer. My only other edit after that was challenging FB their assertion that they were 100% sure it was meat, and even suggested that FB was imploring WP:CRYSTAL which isn't appropriate. (I do think this might be a very specific case where you're reading the thread out of order it was written.)
5. If you look at the vast majority of my comments to and about FSP, as well as on their talk page I was quite civil towards them and gave them multiple benefits of the doubt. I even demonstrated good faith on their talk page, even imploring them that we need editors like them.[5]

With all that said, I'm very confused about what stick you think I'm still holding on to, and what exactly you had a problem with, but given the above, I find your admonishment inappropriate. There is the possibility (AGF) that the bulk of the email was directed at FB, and that only some of it applied to me, but I'm not a mind reader. TiggerJay (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be frank, that message was written at almost 4am at the tail end of a caffeine high. I don't know for sure if I read it in real time, but I had been monitoring that discussion in the background. I was very disappointed by the accusatory tone Floquenbeam continued to use throughout the talk post, which is why I posted that message on their talk page. I considered posting it on yours as well, but I wasn't as sure on your behavior. I think the only reason my mind went to you is because you had the most visible back-and-forth between Factsheetpete, and you stuck out in my mind. That's probably why I didn't call out the other two: I was effectively just going off of memory. guninvalid (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I can thank you for actually taking my advice and WP:AGFing. Most of the admins here are great, but one angry admin can ruin a day, if not an account. guninvalid (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That’s for your reply and honesty. It probably also doesn’t help that my signature also stand out more distinctly in a thread of replies. Cheers. TiggerJay (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Floquenbeam guninvalid (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guninvalid, I just wanted to ask you if this is your first and only account on Wikipedia? I see you have only made 792 edits, but have had the account since 2018, but you seem very well versed in (are reasonably well versed) in Wikipedia policy and guidelines for having such an inexperienced account. I am not assuming bad faith or that you do but just wanted to ask if this is your first and only account on Wikipedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iljhgtn! This is indeed my only account. 792 edits is fairly small yes, but I've done a lot with them. Of course there are a handful of extra edits I have done by IP, but only a handful. I started using Wikipedia a lot more since around 2023. I have a lot of experience with Wikipedia in making and failing to make changes. Scroll up a bit and you'll find the three AfCs I've made, two of which have been denied. I mostly gain experience by noticing problems and trying to fix them, whether with article content or with talk page activity or with a particular user being out of line. 792 is small compared to a number of people on this website, but it did take me a couple months of active effort to get extended-confirmed, and I'm not ashamed of it. My next goal as of now is 500 articlespace edits with hopes to become an AfC reviewer in the future. guninvalid (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guninvalid! The thread you created at the Teahouse, What is the current consensus on referring to Twitter, twitter accounts, or tweets?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Followers of Christ, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC News and Foot washing. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are seeing this please discuss changes that remove entire topics in the talk page for GeoFS Mybirthday647 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Is there something specific you wanted to point me to? guninvalid (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misread your comment. I might've confused your message with the one I saw on User Talk:Aviationwikiflight. I understand that large changes can be controversial, but that is why Wikipedia has policies on being bold. If you disagree with my removals, you are welcome to revert my changes. If you do so, I will likely bring them up in the Talk page in accordance with the bold, revert, discuss process. guninvalid (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Polyvagal theory on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nemov (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Delta Connection Flight 4819 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Connection Flight 4819 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Elli (talk | contribs) 21:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guninvalid! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help with sourcing, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guninvalid,

Take it from me, you don't want to spend a lot of your time on administrator noticeboards, of any stripe. My own RFA was brutal and came down to a "crat chat", in part, because of the amount of time I spent debating other editors on ANI. I know the drama can be a magnet while content creation and sourcing can take a large amount of effort but in the long run, they are a much more substantial contribution to this project of ours.

I hope my comments weren't discouraging, there's still a lot of necessary administrative work that needs to be taken care of and if there is disruption, it needs to be addressed. You just don't want to mistake keeping track of all of the processes and talk page chatter as being more important than building and maintaining our articles. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whale. Another day, another lesson. I can consume drama bit by bit in amounts small enough to procrastinate with, but I have to decide to improve Wikipedia at any given time. I was hurt just a little by your comment, but I understand where it comes from. Thank you very much for the very unsolicited advice. Maybe I should go back to my to-do list... guninvalid (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Simonm223: I'm not going to reopen the closed thread since I don't feel this is important enough to say there but just a reminder that WP:CLOSECHALLENGE makes clear the first step should generally be to discuss it with the closer when you wish to challenge a close rather than open an AN thread. Note that while Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Move review are slightly different processes they too say you should speak to the closer with varying levels of how imperative it is.

I don't personally see anything wrong with what what User:Springee did here, but speaking to User:ThrowawayUsernameToHideIP first would have been the first step, not opening a review on AN if they wanted to follow the normal process. I have no idea if whoever is behind that account plans to check it any more, but AFAICT, they haven't given any indication they wouldn't and they really should have if they were going to make that close. And frankly, the editor making the close completely disappearing is likely to be one factor editors consider if there was any doubt over reversing the close and would also justify just reversing the close more IMO. (Although this case was clear enough I feel it was fine to just reverse them without discussing.)

Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get you. But I just think that while Springee didn't follow process the outcome was the same either way. And, like, I am not Springee's biggest fan so this isn't me treating WP as a team sport here if you get my meaning.Simonm223 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like when Simonm223 makes false claims. They have said repeatedly they are a big fan of mine [/friendly humor :D ]. guninvalid, I can appreciate that sometimes it's frustrating to watch people not follow the process even if the eventual outcome may be the same. Anyway, no hard feelings and happy editing! Springee (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And guninvalid, in this particular case IMO it would still have been wise for you to speak to ThrowawayUserNameToHideIP (and ask them if they disagreed with the reversal) and/or Springee (and ask them to considering reversing their undoing of the close); before opening an AN. Also since I don't know how well this came across in the thread, per WP:NOTBURO etc most of the time you should not be challenging something when you agree with the decision/action especially if you haven't spoken to others who disagree. It leaves editors feeling it's a pointless discussion but also you might not properly explain any issues reducing the chance your challenge will succeed and therefore rightfully annoying those who may genuinely feel there was a problem.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AlphaBetaGamma was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CVE-2025-1094 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could of improved it, Guninvalid Mybirthday647 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you, I tried. I really did. And I do regret getting it deleted a bit. But if you would like to remake it as a draft, you are more than welcome to try yourself! If you do, send me a message! I'd like to try and help. guninvalid (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Insufficient content and sourcing to demonstrate WP:N

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CVE-2025-1094 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford I'd like more specificity if possible. The only source I could possibly see as not reliable is Techerati, but BleepingComputer and The Register are both reliable sources and they both discuss the vulnerability in depth. guninvalid (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article sourced to two RS is not generally sufficient to survive an AfD discussion which is the litmus test for advancing one out of AfC. This article, if moved to mainspace, would likely be merged elsewhere. Chetsford (talk) (preceeding undated reply made on 22:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Guninvalid! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is there a list of closing templates?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 German federal election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]