User talk:Dr. Xhani

Hello, Dr. Xhani, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Dr. Xhani, good luck, and have fun. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Sample page has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sample page. Thanks! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It’s very much appreciated. Dr. Xhani (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved draft

Hello, I have moved your draft from Draft:Sample page, which clearly isn't the correct title, to Draft:Jani Koljaka, which hopefully is.

Also, please don't create multiple copies of the same draft. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s awesome. Very kind of you. Thanks a lot. Dr. Xhani (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jani Koljaka (December 7)

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:

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:

Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing.

Make sure that the draft is sufficiently supported by citations.

Please do not cite Amazon (retailer) or Goodreads (user-generated) as sources.

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:Jani Koljaka 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Xhani! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sample page (December 7)

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:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Jani Koljaka, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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:Dr. Xhani/Sample page 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and also reviewing the article. Would you kindly be more specific to let me know which parts of the article is not supported by reliable resources? This would be very much appreciated since it will help me to correct those particular parts. Dr. Xhani (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is the first source, which is used extensively to support this draft. It isn't a book about Koljaka, but rather someone's commentary on a book about Koljaka. I would consider that an opinion piece, rather than a reliable source.

I was also suggesting that you adopt the preferred method of referencing, using dynamic inline citations, as per WP:REFB. Manually numbering the citations doesn't work very well in a wiki, where the article's content and structure may change over time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt reply and detailed advice. I will do my best to correct those issues and then re-submit the article. Have a pleasant weekend! Dr. Xhani (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jani Koljaka (December 8)

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

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:Jani Koljaka 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.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob,

Thank you for your message. While the written style is rather subjective and I respectfully disagree with your opinion that my 'submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article' I would be willing to review it and even ask the opinion and, if needed, help of other people who have written several encyclopedia articles. However, I'd like you to know that, as a medical doctor and a cardiologist, who have also worked in New Zealand and currently in Australia, I have myself written quite a few articles.

Regarding 'peacock terms' the only one that I can find in my submission is the term "“wizard engineer”. I am taking an educated guess that this could be the one that may have given you the incorrect opinion that this article is not written from a 'neutral point of view'. In her book, Red Cross, Black Eagle: A Biography of Albania’s American School. (reference #4), Mrs. Joan Kontos Fultz has specifically written: "The faculty this year consists of Mr. Fultz, Mr. Hollingshead, Mr. Colliaca (the English version of Koljaka - my note), Mr. Beltoja, and Mr. Tsungu. The three latter are Albanians and excellent teachers. Colliaca...is certainly a wizard engineer. (please note WIZARD). You can verify it yourself by looking at the book - chapter 'New Directions', page 57, paragraph 5, row 28. I would be more than happy to send you a photocopy of this particular page for your convenience. However, I regret to say that by insinuating that this article contains 'peacock term' you have given me a strong impression that you may have simply done a rather superficial review and not checked the references properly which is not expected by an encyclopedia professional level of reviewing an article. I find it kind of disappointing to say the least.

Can you also let me know which sources are you finding unreliable? I had a note from one of your colleagues, DoubleGazing, who kindly advised: "My main concern is the first source, which is used extensively to support this draft. It isn't a book about Koljaka, but rather someone's commentary on a book about Koljaka. I would consider that an opinion piece, rather than a reliable source." Therefore I corrected that source and have linked it with the book itself, a book written by Zyhdi Shehi who is a well-known Albanian historian, author of several books. You would be able to find specific information about Mr. Shehi by doing a google search and even a Wikipedia search. The source of his book about Jani (Xhuf) Koljaka is taken from the Albanian National Library which is the only official ISBN agency in Albania which, furthermore, has the permission to assign ISBN numbers. Therefore, I am not quite sure whether you have noticed it that reference number 1 is changed to comply with the critic and advice made by DoubleGazing.

However, after making my points, I would still appreciate it if you could kindly be more specific which sources made you the impression that they are not reliable while, in the meantime, I will consult with professional encyclopedia writers about the 'formal tone' of this article.

Sincerely,

Dr. Xhani Dr. Xhani (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Xhani,

Do you have any personal, professional, or other connection to Jani Koljaka? Some of the style and content details suggest that you have some inside knowledge or other special access. That sort of situation can make it unusually difficult to write a suitable encyclopedia article. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]