User talk:Qiw007

Qiw007, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Qiw007! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm UY Scuti. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Young Fabians— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 25)[edit]

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

WP:BOMBARD with a great swathe of unverifiable sources. Prodigious work, but no reviewer who cannot check the references is going to accept it. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 User:Qiw007/sandbox 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. You make two points, one about sources, the other about the point of view. Regarding the first, I think that the sources are numerous, independent, and provide significant coverage. There are a lot of notes, and most of these refer to the second half of the submission, where the subject's participation in acting, producing, and directing are verified. The notes simply verify which plays the subject featured in, as actor, director, producer. Many come from the Times of India, which is the newspaper of record in Mumbai. The digital archive is behind a paywall, but all the citations can be readily verified -- as can all the citations in the submission. Many of the sources are journals or books. None of the sources are written by me. As for your second point, I guess we have to differ on this matter. I will look again and see what can be done. I did think the tone and point of view were neutral. Any evaluative or critical assessments came from published sources, not from me. The subject died in 2005, and was regularly written about in the press. In my view, the submission is written "from a neutral point of view" and refers "to a range of independent, reliable, published sources", but I'll take another look. John Snowball 007 (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hosi Vasunia (January 6)[edit]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:

Besides this, previous concerns have not been addressed. Please take a look and fix this draft before resubmitting it again for review.

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:Hosi Vasunia 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

─ The Aafī (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. I have now made major revisions to the article and shortened it considerably. I have kept the lists of roles and performances, since these have a valuable reference function. John Snowball 007 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hosi Vasunia[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hosi Vasunia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pretzelles -- Pretzelles (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hosi Vasunia[edit]

The article Hosi Vasunia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hosi Vasunia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pretzelles -- Pretzelles (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]