User talk:Frankincense Diala

GiantSnowman 10:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Sylvester Mnguember, 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.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know your edits on Vicky Sylvester Mnguember were of good intentions. However, you seemed to be adding unsourced content and links when not necessary. Adding original researches may conflict WP:COI which you should attest to. Please do not add more stress in stuffs like that and since you're new otherwise, do ask me in cases like this. Thanks and cheers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, noted, thanks Boss Frankincense Diala (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Boss @Safariscribe. I need your help please to help me edit my recent article for acceptance into the main space. Thank you Frankincense Diala (talk) 08:13, 26 June 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 Ratnahastin was:

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 Draft:Adedoyin Adeleke 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.

Ratnahastin (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Frankincense Diala! 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! Ratnahastin (talk) 05:18, 26 June 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 Greenman was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:BLP. Statements, starting with the date of birth, need to be sourced or removed. External links should also be removed or converted to inline citations where appropriate.

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:Adedoyin Adeleke 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.

Greenman (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2024 (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 Timtrent were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox).

All I see is three paragraphs of lists where there should be prose. Parts of this lists are culled directly from sources online. I chose not to consider them copyvios since they are, broadly, technical names. However, some could be reworded.

I see WP:BOMBARD. Where I see that I see an editor trying too hard to convince me that the subject is notable.

I see two true lists. "Mentioned in paragraph n" seems a common theme. Are these meant to be references? For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

'nn under nn' lists are generally there to sell the media they are listed in, and rarely have a real world significance

Lose Researchgate as a reference. It is not appropriate

I am struggling to see how he passes WP:BIO. Perhaps if you cut the clutter and lose the Bombard, and write prose, not lists, we might be able to see whether he does.

You have serious work to do. Please only resubmit it when you have done all you can.

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:Adedoyin Adeleke 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 🇺🇦 18:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Green Growth Africa. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adedoyin Adeleke. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Green Growth Africa 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/Green Growth Africa 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adedoyin Adeleke. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop witch hunting me? Frankincense Diala (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the only reviewer on Wikipedia? Frankincense Diala (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankincense Diala When you submit a draft for a review you must expect a review to be given. It is usual to take the advice in the review.

Regrettably, your draft had so many faults that it made me look at your other work, both here and on Wikimedia Commons, where I found other failings. It would be remiss of me not to flag those failings. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frankincense Diala. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Frankincense Diala. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Frankincense Diala|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken that I am being compensated for this edit. Please that's not true. You are getting it all wrong. You can do better by being more of a helper. Frankincense Diala (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer to this simple question, one that every editor may be asked at some time in their editing career. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Futhermore, Permit me to refer you to the citations, especially the ones under Publications and Awards/Honors, on the Adeleke article, you will see they are from reliable sources (I believe you know Nigerian authority sites well). Media sites like Vanguard is even on Wikipedia. I wish you help me push it to main space. Thank you in anticipation. Frankincense Diala (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please attend to the multitude of problems in the draft. By telling you about them I have helped you. You wish it to be an article, so you have to do the work. The reviewer's job ends at the review. We are to accept it if we believe it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. I do not believe it in the case of your draft, so I have declined it with substantial advice. I don't much care if you ignore the advice, but your doing to in a blatant manner is irritating and I have expressed my irritation in a further review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DoubleGrazing. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Timtrent. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adedoyin Adeleke. Thanks! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:12, 5 July 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 Timtrent was:

I am taking the unusual step of a second review for this draft. I am taking it because the creating editor has done none of the work required, simply resubmitting it almost unchanged. This is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the RMS Titanic. My prior review stands.

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:Adedoyin Adeleke 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 🇺🇦 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]