User talk:Anish631

Regarding an article

@Anish631: Hi, just wanted to requests you that if possible, kindly take a look at "George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign" created by me, and suggest some points helping me in improving the article in its peer review. Thank-you!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can take a look at the page, thanks! Anish631 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Anish631[reply]

Hi @Anish631: Thanks for your Peer Review comments, just a note that Peer Review is already closed and article is a Good Article nominee. I have linked Ross Perot in the lead. Appreciate your other comments, but at my Talk page. Thanks!! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Bro you're a god for making this page: 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida. I tried making it ((User:Curbon7/sandbox/2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida) and literally gave up cause of how difficult it was! Curbon7 (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kelly Tshibaka (June 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NPOL.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kelly Tshibaka and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kelly Tshibaka, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Curbon7 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anish631! Having an article 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! Curbon7 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I decided rescind my declination and will leave it to another reviewer. It certainly fails criteria 1 of WP:NPOL, but it may barely pass criteria 2. Curbon7 (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kelly Tshibaka (June 19)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that the appropriate notability criterion is satisfied. In particular, this draft does not appear to indicate that WP:NBIO is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NBIO for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

The subject does not satisfy political notability as a candidate.

This draft does not speak for itself as establishing general notability for the subject.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kelly Tshibaka and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kelly Tshibaka, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Herschel Walker

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Herschel Walker 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 Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Herschel Walker

The article Herschel Walker you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Herschel Walker 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 Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2023 San Francisco mayoral election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 San Francisco mayoral election 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/2023 San Francisco mayoral election 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.

SecretName101 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Robert Gaffner

The article Robert Gaffner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Simply does not meet WP:NPOL, despite his persistence.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of American Cornerstone Institute for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Cornerstone Institute 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/American Cornerstone Institute 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.

HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert Gaffner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Gaffner 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/Robert Gaffner 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Your edit to Robert Gaffner has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]