User talk:Li-reg

This is Li-reg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ori Isaac (May 28)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Vinegarymass911 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: No outstanding claim to notability and this is resume like page with poor sourcing

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Li-reg! 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! Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ori Isaac has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ori Isaac. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Savion Einstein has been accepted

Savion Einstein, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Primefac (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declare any connection

Hello Li-reg. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Ori Isaac, 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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 SEO.

Paid advocates are very 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 extremely 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:Li-reg. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Li-reg|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. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was somewhat paid but its not a "full payment" or in Money. Anyhow, it is now my will to fix it and Im not getting any payment for this. Yet, I have added it to my user page. Li-reg (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The payment does not have to be in money(in part or totally). What is the nature of the relationship? Are you his agent or manager? You are required to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I dont even know him personally, i was asked by a friend because I know Wikipedia but as I said it is now my will and not for any payment... Li-reg (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Savion Einstein

The article Savion Einstein has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE.

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} 14:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on formatting

I've done some work on Savion Einstein, an article you created. I've noticed a few things about your editing which I wanted to share with you. 1) Reference tags belong after the full stop or comma. More on this can be found at WP:CITEFOOT. 2) Titles of creative works (such as films, books, plays etc.) need to be italicised, not placed in inverted commas. More can be found at MOS:IT. I encourage you to go back to the article and fix these small issues. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hamutal Slovin (July 11)

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

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:Hamutal Slovin 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:Hamutal Slovin, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Hamutal Slovin has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hamutal Slovin. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong Hi, I read it but I as I wrote, I do not understand the reason behind it since there is a need for 2-3 reliable sources and I placed more. Could you recheck please? by the way, she's not the only proffesor so how come she gets declined? Li-reg (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hamutal Slovin (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tamingimpala 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hamutal Slovin 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:Hamutal Slovin, 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.

Tame (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hamutal Slovin (August 18)

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

Read WP:PROF. Read it again. And again. Read it forwards, backwards, upside down and sideways until you are absolutely certain that you can cite sources that prove she meets one of its notability criteria. Then rewrite the draft, stating in the first sentence or two of the lead why she is notable. Cite the sources that prove it. Vimeo, ResearchGate, and YouTube are generally poor sources. Her employers, Bar-Ilan University and Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, are reliable, but not independent. They have a vested interest in promoting her. They would be okay for basic facts about education, awards, memberships, or positions, but not for opinions, such as the impact of her research. Omit everything for which you cannot cite a reliable source (date of birth, advised 20 masters/doctoral students, husband, daughters, etc.).

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:Hamutal Slovin 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:Hamutal Slovin, 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.

Worldbruce (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Hamutal Slovin has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hamutal Slovin. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hamutal Slovin has been accepted

Hamutal Slovin, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Assaf Ran

Hello, Li-reg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Assaf Ran, 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) 13:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Freidenberg (April 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 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.

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:Benjamin Freidenberg 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note. There is a lot of information in the draft which does not have an inline reference. This will need to be referenced or removed. The sources are also mainly primary or not in-depth about the subject. They verify the person exists but don't really count towards notability. If you are able to correct these things you can ping me or reach out on my talk page and I will have another look. Finally, if this is a WP:PAID project, please make sure to complete the appropriate disclosure as required. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Benjamin Freidenberg has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Benjamin Freidenberg. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Freidenberg (May 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 Theroadislong 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.

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:Benjamin Freidenberg 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Benjamin Freidenberg has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Benjamin Freidenberg. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong hello, I dont see the comment... also, I left you a comment on your talk page as well.

Can you please explain why you left the message there? if Benjamin is a firend and I did not get paid, why is there a problem?.. Li-reg (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you know him personally, you have a conflict of interest with him that may keep you from being completely neutral in your edits. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred oh I understand.. well I can say there isnt and I ask how do you want me to handel this, is there anything I should do?.. I wrote this for him since I know him but I kept it netural and the problem i now see are the sources and not me writing what I shouldnt. Please explain if I should do something at this point? I placed more sources adn I wish to resubmit it, you think i should or you have any suggestions..? Thanks! Li-reg (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not resubmit at this time, given the fact that the sources you have added are weak passing mentions or his bio page on his student(!) profile. There's a point where the combination of the weak sourcing and COI makes it look like you are grasping at straws, trying to get him into the encyclopedia. Better to continue to work on it in draft and get some solid sources that are in-depth coverage of him. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred it's funny how we correspond in 2 places... :)

as for what you wrote, I trully dont understand how all the sources I placed arent good.. I need to supply 2-3 solid ones and I supplied more. Can you please help me with this? In Israel when you are an award winning director whos involved in so many films and a lecturer in top 3/5 universities, it's very very solid.. to sum it up, please help me! I promise im not paid nor am I trying to do more than give him the page he deserves... Li-reg (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "a lecturer in top 3/5 universities" confers zero notability? Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel when you are an award winning director whos involved in so many films... Why, then, are there not articles discussing the films and also discussing him as well? Not mentioning him, but going into some depth about him, his background, why he did X in the film, etc.? That's one thing I'm not seeing in the sources you've provided. The other is that the sources are not independent: there are a lot of sources to his school or other organizations he's connected to. That's a strength of citing the Jerusalem Post: it's a major newspaper and independent of him. The downside is that the sources I've seen from there only mention him in passing--and in one case, the way he's described, we can't even tell if he's a film director or director of the museum mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @C.Fred, sorry for the delay...had a lot of work.

First, I do not understand how can you say you cannot tell if he is a film director it museum... all because of one articel? it is very obivous he is in film, all the sources are for film and also the awards are for film...

Secondly, there are articels on him but althoug in Israel they are reliable and independent here they are not. I want to see someone is Israe gets a page saying he is a lecturer in a uni'.. it's simply impossible and we have less then 10 in Israel by the way..

I will ask for help before resubmitting this draft since from some reason it took a bad turn while it shouldnt and wont happen in other drafts. thank you for your time and hope you will be willing to help. Li-reg (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of his films notable, ie. do they have Wikipedia articles, if not I fear you may be wasting your time. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So here are the quotations in question:

During the one-hour conversation with director and moderator Benjamin Freidenberg [1]
Mirren will appear at the Jerusalem Cinematheque on June 22 to discuss her life and career with the director, Benjamin Freidenberg. [2]

In the first quote, because of the "and", it implies that Freidenberg's role as a moderator of the event and his role as a director are parallel. As in, it sounds like he is the director of the event or institution (museum) that is hosting it.

The second, is the one that makes Freidenberg really look like director of the museum. The comma setting off his name means that "the director" is not a descriptor of him but another term to refer to him. And there is more than one film director; so "the director" leads the reader to conclude he's director of JC. If the sentence had instead read "…with director Benjamin Freidenberg", then it's easier to read both ways; for clarity, it arguably should have read "…with film director Benjamin Freidenberg", to make clear that he's that kind of director. Compare it also to this text elsewhere in the same article: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will present the 2016 Genesis Prize to Itzhak Perlman, acclaimed violinist, educator and advocate for individuals with disabilities. There is no "the" before any of Perlman's descriptors, because none of those roles are singular, like director of a museum would be. —C.Fred (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok I see and understand better now. Im afraid I cannot control what a writer write but please see most of the articles state he is a film director..

as for the movies, yes, here is a link for example: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%9F_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C it's in Hebrew. Li-reg (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article isn't even about one of his films. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred hi, he was in charge on casting and since when having a wiki page is the sign?. Li-reg (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Li-reg Regarding the first point, you presented that link after the statement "most of the articles state he is a film director". Hence the confusion, since another individual was named as the director. For the second part, I'm afraid that I can't understand what you're trying to ask. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @C.Fred, I'll try to explain:

1. I presented it since only one individual only wrote something that could maybe translated and create a confusion. It is very obvious he is a film director and it seems very odd to make this a prime reason for a decline or a source to question if he is a film director or not.

2. My second question is to why the existence of a wiki page is an indicator?

I still of course answered your questions and with all do respect, its seems we are on hold from weird reasons.. one reporter writing something the might be suggesting something and if his films have a wiki page... so I will ask straight to the point, what exactly is your main concern? this person has 2 wiki pages, he won awards, he is a well known film director, he is a lecturer and there well over 2-3 sources.

Li-reg (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he has two articles here, those need to be merged. What's the other article about him? —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the confusion is coming from this statement I made earlier: Why, then, are there not articles discussing the films and also discussing him as well? To clarify, I meant articles in reliable sources. In other words, a newspaper article that just says he is the director of a film does not show he is notable. One mentioning he won an award helps establish him as a notable person, but it doesn't fulfill the requirements of the general notability guidelines (GNG). An article talking about the award and presenting information about his history and background would meet the GNG criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are such as already and I added more. Li-reg (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are you asserting are independent and provide substantial coverage of him? —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred hello, you can see which I added. I must say and I say it with upmost respect (in case my English or writing wont be clear), it seems you have something against this draft and this something is not understandable to me.. starting with the one article and moving on to a claim a university isnt reliable. I think it's time for someone else to review it. I resubmitted the draft and I will wait for someone to review it. If it's declined again, I will take it with the help and see what can be done. Thank you for everything. Li-reg (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I have against the draft is that it does not meet WP:GNG. I reviewed the sources in the draft and find none that are independent and give substantial coverage of the subject. Since you are unwilling to help by pointing out one or two of the better sources, there's nothing more I can do to help with the draft. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did point and even wrote about the sources in the talk page. Li-reg (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i again checked the talk page and it's there. So again no idea why you wrote what you wrote Li-reg (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Benjamin Freidenberg (July 2)

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:

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:

Many of your references have no value in establishing notability, though they do establish that Freidenberg exists. An example is https://en.linguistics.huji.ac.il/people/benjamin-freidenberg. Please extrapolate to the other similar ones and simple cut them out. They produce WP:BOMBARD

At present I am not persuaded that you have shown that he passes WP:NFILMMAKER, nor WP:NACADEMIC. You have presented him as WP:ROTM, not as a perps who passes WP:BIO.

Mindful of your accusation about another reviewer made in this edit I want you to be clear. This is. review of the draft, and is not personal. I advise you to confine yourself to improving the draft.

To help you, this is what we require: 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.

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:Benjamin Freidenberg 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 🇺🇦 19:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm Timtrent. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk 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. This edit is entirely unacceptable. This must cease. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]